DOES THE TORAH COMMAND TO BEAUTIFY MITZVOS? [Zeh Keli v'Anvehu: mid'Oraisa]
(Rav): (On Yom Kipur, a lottery determines which of two goats is a Chatas (offered to Hash-m) and which is Mishtale'ach (sent to Azazel). If the Mishtale'ach died, we take two other goats and do another lottery.) The goat from the first pair is offered.
This is as Rav holds elsewhere, that the Mitzvah is to offer the first one.
Yoma 64a (Rava): Rav holds like R. Yosi, who says that the Mitzvah is with the first one.
(Beraisa - Chachamim): If one was Makdish a Korban Pesach, and it was lost, and he was Makdish a replacement, and then the first was found, he offers whichever he wants;
R. Yosi says, the Mitzvah is to offer the first;
If the second was nicer, he offers it.
Shabbos 133b (Beraisa): As long as one is engaged in circumcising, he goes back for strands whether or not they are Me'akev (invalidate the Milah). Once he removes his hand, he goes back to cut strands only if they are Me'akev.
(Rabah bar bar Chanah): The Tana is R. Yishmael, son of R. Yochanan ben Brokah;
(Beraisa - R. Yishmael): If Erev Pesach is on Shabbos, we flay Korban Pesach until the chest (then stop to remove and deal with the Eimurim). We flay the rest at night;
Chachamim say, we totally flay it on Shabbos.
Rejection: R. Yishmael forbids flaying it entirely because "Zeh Keli v'Anvehu" (beautify Mitzvos) does not apply (after the Eimurim were removed). Zeh Keli v'Anvehu applies to the Mitzvah of Milah, so he would permit non-essential strands!
(Beraisa): "Zeh Keli v'Anvehu" - be beautiful in front of Hash-m with Mitzvos. Make a beautiful Sukah, Lulav, Tzitzis, and a beautiful Sefer Torah written Lishmo in nice ink with a nice quill by a professional scribe, and wrap it in nice silk!
Aba Sha'ul says, "v'Anvehu" (is like 'Ani v'Hu, I and He') - resemble Him. Just like He is gracious and merciful, you should be!
Gitin 54b (R. Ami): If the names of Hash-m in a Sefer Torah were not written Lishmah, it is worthless.
R. Ami could even hold like R. Yehudah, who permits overwriting Hash-m's name with intent to be Mekadesh it. He permits this once, but not every place it occurs, for such a Sefer appears spotted.
Tosfos (23a DH d'Rebbi): Since we can fix the Korban (offer the lost one, and the replacement will graze), why do we overtly (offer the latter, and) cause it (the lost one) to die? My Rebbi answered that this is when we gain through this, e.g. the lost animal is lean and the replacement is fat. Then we say that he should atone through the fat animal, and the lean animal will die.
Rambam (Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach 7:11): Chachamim listed the different qualities of oil, even though all of them are Kosher, for one who wants to merit will force his Yetzer Ra to bring the nicest one for his Korban. Hevel brought from the choicest of his flock; Hash-m accepted his Korban. The same applies to everything for Hash-m. It should be beautiful and good. If one built a house for prayer, it should be nicer than the house he lives in. If he feeds the hungry, he gives the nicest and sweetest from his table. If he clothes the naked, he gives the best of he said clothing. It says "Kol Chelev la'Shem."
Rambam (Hilchos Milah 2:4): As long as one is engaged in circumcising, he goes back for strands whether or not they are Me'akev. Once he removes his hand, he goes back for strands only if they are Me'akev.
Sha'agas Aryeh (50): The Tur (YD 264) says that as long as one is circumcising, he may go back to cut even strands that are not Me'akev. One he ceases cutting, he goes back only for what is Me'akev. This refers to Shabbos. On a weekday, he goes back for both. The Rambam connotes that even on a weekday, once he stopped he need not go back for strands that are not Me'akev, unlike the Tur. This is difficult, for in Shabbos we say that Milah is different than Pesach. All could agree that one goes back for strands, for we require Zeh Keli v'Anvehu, unlike Pesach. Therefore, we must say that the Beraisa this teaches that on Shabbos we do not go back. Even though Aba Sha'ul expounds Zeh Keli v'Anvehu differently, even if you will say that he argues with Chachamim, we hold like the majority. Also, surely he agrees with Chachamim, and merely adds another Drashah. If not, what was the Gemara's question? Perhaps R. Yishmael holds like Aba Sha'ul, and does not require Zeh Keli v'Anvehu! The Rambam holds that once one stopped cutting, going back to cut more is like a new matter. Zeh Keli v'Anvehu does not apply, so strands that are not Me'akev are not Me'akev the Mitzvah. The Gemara's question assumed that mid'Oraisa, it is not like a new matter once he stopped. Rather, Chachamim decreed this. If so, perhaps regarding Milah, since Zeh Keli v'Anvehu applies, R. Yishmael holds that Chachamim did not decree to be lenient, and mid'Oraisa one must cut the strands! We answered that mid'Oraisa, it is like a new beginning, therefore even on a weekday he need not cut more. If Hidur Mitzvah still applied mid'Oraisa, it would be Docheh Shabbos, like we say in Yoma (64a), that even after slaughtering a lean Chatas (on Shabbos), l'Chatchilah we bring a fatter one and slaughter it. Even if beautifying Mitzvos is only mid'Rabanan, before one stopped cutting, he may go back even for what is not Me'akev.
Rosh (Sukah 3:12): One must spend an extra third to beautify a Mitzvah. We did not resolve whether one adds an inner third (of the principal) or an outer third (half the principal). An inner third suffices.
Ran (DH ul'Hidur): The Rif did not say whether one adds an inner third or an outer third, in order that we will be stringent. This is better.
Yam Shel Shlomo (Bava Kama 1:24): Since the question was unsettled, we should be stringent about a Safek mid'Oraisa! Perhaps the Rosh holds that it is mid'Rabanan. I think that one should be stringent, like the Ran.
Ran (Megilah 5b Sof DH v'Chasav): If there are four errors on every Daf of a Sefer Torah, it must be buried (Menachos 29b). Perhaps this is only for a Sefer Torah, because it looks spotted. Chachamim were stringent due to Zeh Keli v'Anvehu. Perhaps we are not so stringent for a Megilah.
Rivash (7, b'Sof): We may rely on the Rashba (to fix a Sefer Torah in which open Parshiyos were made closed, or vice-versa, even though the Rambam is stringent). For mid'Rabanan matters, we rely on the lenient opinion.
Rema (YD 264:5): On a weekday, l'Chatchilah one removes all the strands, even strands that are not Me'akev.
Pischei Teshuvah (15): The Sha'agas Aryeh concluded that the Rambam's opinion is primary. This is why the Beis Yosef omitted it. Even though the Rema brought it, if the baby is a little weak, even if there is no mortal danger, one may rely on this to leave strands that are not Me'akev.
Shulchan Aruch (OC 656:1): If one bought an Esrog minimally Kosher for the Mitzvah, it is a Mitzvah to add up to a third of the price of the first to exchange it for the nicer one.
Mishnah Berurah (1): This opinion holds that the Mitzvah to buy a bigger one is lest a small one become smaller than the Shi'ur. The next opinion holds that it is always a Mitzvah to spend an extra third to beautify any Mitzvah.
Shulchan Aruch (ibid.): Some say that if he finds two Esrogim to buy, and one of them is nicer than the other, he should buy the nicer one if the price difference is no more than a third of the other.
Yehudah Ya'aleh (1 YD 300, b'Sof): The questioner said that the Pesul of a spotted Sefer Torah is due to Zeh Keli v'Anvehu. This is a Torah Pesul but the Torah empowered Chachamim to decide when it applies, like the Ran says (Sukah 13b) about Hadar. The Torah explicitly says Hadar. Rashi said that it is due to Zeh Keli v'Anvehu. Tosfos rejected this, for that is only mid'Rabanan and l'Chatchilah. The Ran (Megilah 3b) said that perhaps the law of putting in Genizah a Sefer Torah with too many mistakes does not apply to a Megilah. Chachamim were stringent about a Sefer Torah. Perhaps they were not stringent about a Megilah. This shows that Menumar is due to Zeh Keli v'Anvehu, and it is only mid'Rabanan. The Ran's Talmid, the Rivash, says similarly. Also Sha'agas Aryeh said so. (Note: Sha'agas Aryeh seemed to be unsure about this.) I say that there is no proof (that Zeh Keli v'Anvehu is mid'Oraisa) from Kodshim (the Heter to slaughter a nicer Korban on Shabbos). We expound "Echad" - it should be the choicest in the herd. "Mivchar (the choicest for) Nedarecha" is mid'Oraisa, but it is not Me'akev. Elsewhere, there is no Mitzvah mid'Oraisa. It is only a Mitzvah mid'Rabanan, therefore strands that are not Me'akev are not Docheh Shabbos. However, the Rambam in Hilchos Isurei Mizbe'ach seems to equate other Mitzvos to Korbanos. This requires great investigation. It is a Safek if we add an inner or outer third to beautify Mitzvos; the Rosh is lenient. This shows that it is only mid'Rabanan, unlike Rashi.