With the help of Heaven
Payment for Mitzvot
Sources and reasoning:
1). This is stated in the Zohar (Parashat Terumah 128a), as follows: “One who wishes to engage in a mitzvah and thereby engage with the Holy One, blessed be He, must not engage in it empty-handed or gratuitously; rather, a person must engage in it properly, according to his means, as we have explained this matter in several places, etc. However, engagement in Torah—whoever wishes may merit to engage in it with the Holy One, blessed be He, to know Him—whoever wishes may merit this entirely without payment. But engagement with the Holy One, blessed be He, that consists of an action, may not be undertaken gratuitously or empty-handed, because through that act one cannot at all merit to draw upon himself a spirit of holiness except through full payment.” See there.
Further, it writes there in the name of the Safra DeCharashai (a book of sorcery), that Ashmedai taught King Shlomo: Whoever wishes to exert himself to remove from upon himself an impure spirit, etc., must acquire it for full payment, whatever is demanded of him, whether little or much. For an impure spirit is readily available gratuitously and empty-handed, and is acquired without payment; it compels people to allow it to rest upon them and entices them to dwell with it through many persuasions. This is also cited by Kaf HaChaim (siman 454, se’if katan 39).
You have thus seen how serious it is to perform a mitzvah without payment—that is, when one has not spent money on it—and that by means of this, the mitzvah has the power to remove an evil spirit and draw upon him a spirit of holiness from the mitzvah.
Indeed, we find this in the poskim as well. See the Shulchan Aruch (siman 53, סעיף 22), which writes that a paid shaliach tzibbur is preferable to one who serves voluntarily. See the Pri Megadim and Mishnah Berurah (se’if katan 63) regarding their explanation of the reason. However, the Aruch HaShulchan (there, סעיף 23) writes that the reason is simple: every mitzvah for which payment is made is better than one performed without payment. Similarly, the Mishnah Berurah (siman 584, se’if katan 8), in the name of Shaarei Ephraim, writes that every G-d-fearing man should strive to receive an aliyah on the Yamim Nora’im; even in places where mitzvot are sold, he should purchase one according to his means. On the contrary, a mitzvah that comes to him through payment is more elevated than a mitzvah that comes to him entirely free of charge. Likewise, the Magen Avraham (siman 132, se’if katan 2) explains that the Beit Yosef implies that it is preferable for one’s son to hire someone to recite Kaddish in his place rather than have someone recite it without payment. It appears that their reason is as explained above, for in this manner the Kaddish is elevated further. See also Kaf HaChaim (siman 454, se’if katan 40), who cites Shaar HaMitzvot (Parashat Ekev): When Rabbeinu HaAri z”l purchased a mitzvah item, such as tefillin or an etrog, he was not particular to know how much he would pay for that mitzvah; rather, he would pay whatever they requested of him the first time, saying to the seller: “Here is the money before you; take whatever you wish.”
2). Although Maran the Beit Yosef (Yoreh De’ah, siman 264), citing the responsa of the Rashba (vol. 1, siman 472), writes: “You asked concerning a mohel who refused to perform a circumcision unless the father of the son gave him payment, but the father does not possess what he demands, and there is no other mohel in the city. Response: This mohel nearly demonstrates about himself that he is not of the descendants of Avraham Avinu, and he must be rebuked, for he does not desire mitzvot.” See there. This does not contradict the words of the holy Zohar. There, it concerns the mohel and likewise other performers of mitzvot, who should not demand payment for a mitzvah on their own initiative and refrain from performing the mitzvah if they are not paid. However, the father of the son is obligated to pay the mohel.
3). I saw a major novel ruling in the responsa Chavat Yair (at the end of siman 232): There is greater hiddur in a mitzvah for which one paid money, even if it is not as intrinsically beautiful as a mitzvah that came to him free of charge. I found support for this in the responsa Torah Lishmah (siman 50), where the author, Rabbi Yosef Chaim z”l, writes that if one received an etrog as a gift and it is exceptionally mehudar, while he has another etrog for which he paid and which is not as attractive as the former, he should recite the blessing over the etrog for which he paid. It is evident that they understood that the hiddur of having paid for it, although external, is considered greater hiddur than the intrinsic beauty of the object. The words of Torah Lishmah further indicate that even if one bought one etrog and has already attained the distinction of having spent money on it, there is nevertheless an advantage in the etrog itself upon which he spends money; this is not merely a quality of the person.
4). However, Kaf HaChaim (siman 649, se’if katan 4) writes that one should not recite the blessing over an etrog acquired free of charge, because the kelipot draw sustenance from mitzvot that come without payment. Rabbi Chaim Palaggi likewise writes this in Mo’ed LeChol Chai (siman 23, letter 43). It seems clear that he does not mean that if one has only this etrog, he should not recite the blessing over it. Rather, he means that if he has another etrog, he should recite the blessing over that one. This is obvious in my humble opinion.
5). Torah Lishmah (ibid.) further writes that it is known that the blessing of Shehecheyanu over a new fruit is a blessing of praise and thanksgiving to the Holy One, blessed be He, and involves a significant mitzvah. A person should therefore be careful to recite the blessing over a new fruit that he purchased with money. If others sent him a new fruit as a gift, or if he was a guest at another’s table and a new fruit was brought to the table while he had not yet recited Shehecheyanu, he should not recite the blessing over it; rather, he should purchase one with money and recite Shehecheyanu. He further writes that he saw chassidim and אנשי מעשה who were meticulous to recite Shehecheyanu over fruits they had purchased with their own money, out of love for the mitzvah. His words reveal a novel point: even though the fruit is not itself a mitzvah object, there is nevertheless an advantage in a fruit purchased with money, because ultimately the blessing comes through a mitzvah performed with payment. See there further regarding sandaka’ut. See also Zecher David (ma’amar 1, chapter 79), which elaborates on the virtue of sandaka’ut obtained through payment and supports it from the words of the Zohar. See also Migdal Oz (Nahal 9, letter 5), which states that this is found in a Midrash: כביכול, the Holy One, blessed be He, served as sandak for Avraham and gave him Eretz Yisrael as a gift.
6). Based on this, it appears that the same applies to the common case of married children who are guests in their parents’ home on Shabbat Chanukah. Although they need not kindle independently under the law of a guest, and strictly speaking need not contribute even a perutah—as written in Gan HaMelech (siman 41), that if a guest is entirely dependent upon the host, eating his bread and drinking from his cup, he need not contribute, for the host grants him a share in the oil as well—so too Kaf HaChaim (siman 677, se’if katan 3) writes in the name of the poskim. Nevertheless, according to what has been explained, he should give a perutah to the host for his participation, and thereby merit the hiddur mitzvah through which one merits children who are Torah scholars.
7). The same applies to one who is a guest in his parents’ or father-in-law’s home on Pesach and is meticulous in all his observances: it is proper for him to be meticulous in this as well, contributing his own money for the matzot that he eats, or bringing matzot from his own home. Chavat Yair (ibid.) likewise writes this. (Some say that in any event it is proper to take care regarding this because of the requirement of “lachem”—that it be yours.) Although the same should logically apply to Kiddush, there is no reason to distinguish; nevertheless, the practice has not been to be particular about this.
8). A Torah-scholar kollel student who is a kohen asked me about terumah oil that he received, which may be used only for kindling: how should he proceed? I replied that he should mix this oil with oil purchased with his own money, in which case it is considered that he kindled with his own funds.
This response was translated automatically from Hebrew and has not yet been reviewed by a person. Therefore, it may contain inaccuracies and should not be considered a definitive reference.
