Our Gemara on Amud Beis raises an interesting question in regard to will and agency. We know that a person may act as an unappointed agent when doing a service that is a benefit, since we presume he would have agreed to appoint him. If so, what is the case in regard to taking Terumah (out of your own produce) to make another person’s “tevel” produce permitted as chulin? (In order to eat produce, Terumah must first be taken off for the Cohen.  This act turns the forbidden (tevel) into regular food (chulin.)  In this scenario, since the fellow is actually saving money because the other person is using his produce, it should be valid as the act of a presumptive agent. On the other hand, the Gemara wonders that still, since the owner would lose a chance to perform the mitzvah of hafrashas terumah for himself, maybe he would object.  There is, at least, a spiritual loss here (see commentary of Rosh).

While our Gemara leaves this question unresolved, the Gemara (Chulin 87a) takes the matter of stolen mitzvos so seriously, that it reports that Rabban Gamliel obligated a person who stole another’s mitzvah to pay up ten gold coins! The case was regarding someone who “stole” the mitzvah of covering the blood of a slaughtered bird or wild animal, which is a mitzvah. The Gemara then wonders, is the ten gold coins for stealing the mitzvah, or for stealing the blessing?  If it is the latter, the Gemara reasons that if one stole the opportunity of leading in the Blessing After Meals, he would have to pay 40 gold coins, as it would be ten gold coins for each of the four blessings.  The Gemara concludes from an incident involving Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi where the blessings after the meals were valued by him at forty gold coins. Therefore, one who stole the mitzvah of Blessing After Meals, would have to pay forty gold coins. 

Tosafos asks, since there also is a blessing on the wine after the meal, should it not be five blessings and therefore 50 gold coins?

The Chasam Sofer (Mishpatim 25) offers a clever answer.  We know that the severest punishment for theft is four to five times the value, such as if a stolen sheep or ox was sold or slaughtered (Shemos 21:37).  There is actually a dispute in the Gemara (Bava Kamma 79b) between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai to explain the difference between the sheep and the ox:

אמר רבי מאיר בא וראה כמה גדול כח של מלאכה שור שביטלו ממלאכתו חמשה שה שלא ביטלו ממלאכתו ארבעה

The Gemara discusses why there is a fourfold payment for a sheep but a fivefold payment for an ox. Rabbi Meir said: Come and see how great the power of labor is. The theft of an ox, which was forced by the thief to cease its labor, leads to a fivefold payment; whereas the theft of a sheep, which was not forced by the thief to cease its labor, as a sheep performs no labor, leads to only a fourfold payment.

אמר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי בא וראה כמה גדול כבוד הבריות שור שהלך ברגליו חמשה שה שהרכיבו על כתיפו ארבעה:

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said: Come and see how great human dignity is. The theft of an ox, which walked on its own legs as the thief stole it, leads to a fivefold payment, whereas the theft of a sheep, which the thief carried on his shoulder as he walked, thereby causing himself embarrassment, leads to only a fourfold payment.

Chasam Sofer says we see that there is a difference between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai over what is the baseline fine.  According to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai the baseline is five times, we just discount one sheep due to the embarrassment.  While according to Rabbi Meir, the baseline is four times, but since in the case of the stolen ox he also loses chance to work, we add one more ox to the fine.

Now we need to do a little math. Chasam Sofer reasons as follows: According to tradition, Eliezer gave Rivka a gold bracelet worth 10 gold coins. According to Rashi (Bereishis 24:22) The 10 gold coins were representative of the 10 Commandments. Thus, at its root, each mitzvah is worth one gold coin. However, there also was a doubling of the value of the Shekel for use in sacerdotal matters, see Rashi (Shemos 38:24). So now we are up to two gold coins per mitzvah. if you hold that the fine is five times the value then you get 10 gold coins for every mitzvah, 5×2. On the other hand, if you hold that the fine is at its base four times the value, then the cost of every mitzvah is actually eight gold coins, 4×2.

Thus, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who was a student of Rabbi Meir followed his opinion. If so, the baseline for theft is four times. If there are 5 blessings (including the wine), and each lost blessing is then 8 gold coins (4x2), then four times the five blessings (5x8) equals forty.

What the Chasam Sofer does not make clear is how theft of a mitzvah is evaluated on the scale of four to five times, and not like regular theft of objects which are merely double?  We could answer simply that it is a kal v’chomer, as how could a mitzvah be worth less than the most valuable possession that the Torah saw fit to fine at four to five times? (And it would not be more than that because of Dayo Laba Min Hadin see Rashi Bamidbar 12:14).  Or, we might add, if the beast stands for productivity (either plowing, milk, or shearing), then surely a mitzvah represents at least as much productivity and at least as much value.

In any case, we see how much we should value mitzvos, and even more so blessings. 

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)