In the discussion of a shomer mitzvah being protected against a danger (as long as it's not a common danger), what exact kind of danger is protected?
Someone told me that Isi ben Yehudah's statement implies the protection is against all harm, even the slightest loss of property. Someone else told me that the word choice implies only protection against some kind of permanent harm. To what does it actually refer?
Ariel, California
It refers to any harm, to person or property, that is could come about due to the fulfillment of a Mitzvah (Rav Moshe Sternbuch, shlit'a).
Best regards,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Thank you. As a followup, according to him, if one brings Shaliach Mitzvah money on an airplane flight, since being on that flight doesn't come about from doing a Mitzvah, there would be no protection (and thus no point to the practice)?
(a) It would seem that the answer to your question depends on whether the person's flight to Israel is deemed as a mission to bring Tzedakah money to Israel - in which case he will be afforded protection - or whether it is judged merely as a visit to Israel for personal pleasure, which might not be considered a Mitzvah. (By the way, whether or not it is a Mitzvah to travel to Eretz Yisrael for pleasure is arguable - but that is not our question at present.)
This in turn depends on the Sugya in Bava Metzia 30a which discusses whether it is permitted to use an Aveidah in a way which is meant for two purposes, l'Tzorcho ul'Tzorchah. Even though the finder has personal interest in using the Aveidah, perhaps it is permitted since the use is also meant to preserve the Aveidah.
(b) The Shulchan Aruch (CM 267:18) rules stringently and prohibits such use of an Aveidah. However, from the SM'A (#21) and Nesivos (Chidushim #10) there, it seems that the prohibition is only because one might extend the use in a way that it only beneficial to the finder and not to the Aveidah. They seem to be ruling that in other circumstances it is considered as though the act is done for each purpose individually, and the person bringing Shali'ach Mitzvah money will indeed be deemed to be traveling for the purpose of a Mitzvah.
However, the ROSH (Bava Metzia ibid.) and Bi'ur ha'Gra (CM ibid #28) rule that since the Gemara's question is left unresolved, we must rule stringently and prohibit the use of an Aveidah for l'Tzorcho and l'Tzorchah. If so, the trip to Israel may not be considered a trip of Shelichus Mitzvah after all, since the main object of the trip is for the person's pleasure.
Nevertheless, since the Gemara's question is left unresolved and there is a chance that the bearer of the Shelichus Mitzvah money will indeed be protected by the Mitzvah he is doing, it would be advantageous to take along Shelichus Mitzvah money after all.
Best regards,
Mordecai Kornfeld
Kollel Iyun Hadaf