Inconvenient Indeed

[Ari]

The following is a Shiur I listened to by Rav Yehoshua Grunstein:

The Pasuk (Devarim 20:19) tells us that during a siege it is Assur
to cut down fruit bearing trees. There are two aspects, however. First
of all there is an issue of, “Ki MiMenu SOcheil.” The second issue is
“V’Oso Lo SiChros.”
Tosfos (Bava Metzia 32b) seems to say an act of destruction/waste
of anything would be an Issur D’Orysa. However, the Rambam (Melachim
6-8) seems to say that destroying/wasting of nonfood items would only
be an Issur D’Rabanan.
The Gemara (Brachos 36b) discusses when one must stop cutting down
trees before Shemittah. Tosfos there asks why there isn’t a problem of
Baal Tashchis.
1. Tosfos first answer that Baal Tashchis is only Assur if there is a
Kav of fruits. Here there isn’t a Kav so the question is only
regarding the Shemittah issue.
2. Tosfos then answer that this is talking about a case where you are
going to use the trees to make beams.
According to the first answer of Tosfos, if there are enough
fruits it is Assur to cut it down even if there is another use.
According to the second answer of Tosfos, even if there were tons of
fruits, if there is another use for it then it would be Mutar.
This leads us to an important Chakira: Is the Issur of Baal
Tashchis an Issur of destroying something in its given role even
though there is another use, or is the Issur making something useful
useless? Meaning, is the Etzem act of HaShchasa Assur or is it only
Assur if there is no Toeles?
The Sefer HaChinuch (529) says that the HaShchasa is Assur even if
there is another use. Rashi (Taanis 20b) says that someone can’t take
human food and give it to their animal. He calls it “Bizuy Ochlin,”
and it is as if “K’Boeit B’Tovah SheHiShpia HaKadosh Baruch Hu
BaOlam.” Here too, it seems as though the Etzem act of HaShchasa is
Assur.
However, the Ramban (HaSagos L’Sefer HaMitzvos 6) understands things
differently. He explains that when we are laying siege, there is a
Mitzvah to eat from the trees during the siege. Therefore, if one
cuts down the fruit bearing trees they are being Over on an Asei and a
Lo Saasei. This is Mashma that the Ikar is the eating and not the
destroying. The focus is on making sure this tree still has utility,
not as much on the act of destruction. The Netziv (HaAmek Davar) says
explicitly that it is Assur to cut down the trees unless one will get
Hanaah from it in another way.
What’s the Nafka Minah between these two Mihalchin?
1. The Gemara (Brachos 52b) quotes a Machlokes between Beis Shammai
and Beis Hillel. Beis Shammai says that one must clear the table
before they wash Mayim Achronim. Rashi explains that one must do this
so that the bread doesn’t get disgusting. Bes Hillel says that the
concern is only for bread that is at least the size of a Kzayis.
Tosfos there says that one should be Makpid even for less because
throwing away bread is a bad Segula for becoming poor. The Shulchan
Aruch (OC 180:3-4) Paskens that the concern is really only for pieces
of at least the size of a Kzayis, however, like Tosfos, one should be
Makpid even for Peirurin. He also says that it is only a concern if
one washes at the table. If they don’t then there is no need. The
Mishna Berurah (180:7) says that nowadays when people use a Kli at the
table, they should clean the immediate area. The Magen Avraham (OC
180:3), however, says that the Aniyus issue is only if one goes out of
there way to destroy them. However, if the crumbs happen to get wet it
isn’t such a big deal. The Magen Avraham seems to be focused on the
act of HaShchasa. Meaning, even though the Peirurim probably won’t be
used again, nevertheless, to be actively Mashchis is unacceptable.
However, the Shulchan Aruch seems more concerned about ruining the
crumbs because they do, in theory, have some Toeles at this point.
2. The Gemara (Bava Kama 91a) says that a certain person died because
they cut a date tree down too early. The Taz (YD 116:6) quotes the
Rosh who says that one need not be concerned if they need the tree for
something else or even if you need the space to build something.
What’s interesting is that the Tur doesn’t quote his father L’Halacha.
Perhaps it is because the Tur felt that it is Assur to cut it down for
a different reason. The act itself is problematic. The Shut Binyan
Tzion (61) is Matir knocking down trees to build houses. However, he
notes that the Shut Beis Yaakov (140) is Machmir. The Beis Yaakov
argues for some of the above reasons. He also notes that Tosfos didn’t
give this answer of the Rosh.
3. The Har Tzvi (2:101) discusses Baal Taschis L’Inyan Mitzvah. He
quotes the Shiltei Giborim who says that there would be no Issur to
cut down trees to use for Schach. He brings proof from the fact that
there is a Chiyuv Kriyah for an Avel. Tosfos (Bva Metzia), however,
was only Matir because of Asei Doche Lo Taaseh. Meaning, according to
the Shiltei Giborim there is no Issur because it is being used for
another purpose. However, according to Tosfos the act itself is Assur
it just happens to be that sometimes Asei Doche Lo Taaseh.
Rav Grunstien felt that according to both of these opinions there
is a Chiyuv to recycle.

[Jacob Lewin]

Ari mentioned tearing kriyah for an avel, and I remember R'Sobolofsky
dealing with this in his avelus shiurim...

ברכי יוסף says that one is only required to tear a טפח (for a מת) and
tearing any more constitutes בל תשחית. Many, however, disagree with
this because it is hard to imagine that we are supposed to be so
exacting in that one is not יוצא if he or she tears less than a טפח,
and violates an איסור if he or she tears more. Generally, R'Sobolofsky
says, that we assume that the אבל should aim to tear at least a
טפח--and to make sure that he or she does--and if he or she tears a
little more, it's fine. BUT, one should not tear בגדים that he is not
required to tear, or even make multiple tears on the בגד that he is
obligated to tear.

Interestinglty, ש"ך יו"ד תב:ג says that although it is not generally
allowed to tear unnecessarily, one can tear more (and it's allowed)
for אב ואם. This means that even though מעיקר הדין one is not
required to tear a jacket, he or she may do so for אב ואם, even though
for other relatives it would be בל תשחית.

But, R'Sobolofsky did point out that it's not so clear that "extra
tears" are a problem nowadays. He explains that this is because
destroying something that is going to be thrown away anyways is not a
violation of בל תשחית. Since nowadays nobody repairs and keeps the
torn בגדים anyway, making extra tears would seem not to violate בל
תשחית.

Similarly, משנה ברורה (quoted by him, dunno where it is...probably in
או"ח סימן ח) says that if one wants to switch the ציצית on his בגד, he
should unravel them and not cut them off because doing so would be בל
תשחית. BUT, nowadays, R'Sobolofsky says, where one can buy new strings
for $5 and people generally do not intend to reuse the stings, it may
not be בל תשחית to cut them off.

These last two ideas that R'Sobolofsky said might only be under the
assumption that the איסור of בל תשחית is because there is no תועלת in
the destruction, but if the issur is because of a עצם מעשה השחתה, it
might not matter that בזמן הזה it "has no utility." But it's not so
full-proof, because one could argue that although the nature of the
איסור is the עצם השחתה, still, in the avel/tzizis cases, they arent
considered ראוי to be classified as something which is being
"destroyed."

[mordy]

Teaching the gemara in Kiddushin about a parent tearing garment/throwing wallet into the sea to test child's response/strike fear into his child's heart and remembered this classic ichabura hakira (also shayach to this week's parsha)

Recycling indeed