When destruction is done for an important reason, it is not considered destruction and is not prohibited. Therefore, one may destroy fruit for financial reasons. For example, if the market is flooded with inexpensive fruit, and unless some of the fruit growing in the fields is destroyed it will no longer be worthwhile to pick and cultivate the crop, one may destroy part of it (see Ta’anit 20b).
For the same reason, the mitzva for a groom to break a glass under the ḥuppa does not violate bal tashḥit. It serves the mitzva of recalling the sorrow over the Temple’s destruction at the height of his joy (Berakhot 31a; Rema OḤ 560:2). Similarly, a mourner has a mitzva to tear his garment for the deceased. This is not prohibited as bal tashḥit, since it is a mitzva through which he honors the deceased and mourns him. Nevertheless, a mourner can go too far in the number of garments he tears for the deceased; at a certain point, the tearing becomes destructive (Bava Kama 91b).
The Gemara recounts (Shabbat 105b) that when members of the household of one of the great amora’im acted improperly, he wanted to educate and rebuke them, and to show them the severity of what they had done. He therefore made himself appear angry and broke a utensil before them, as if to say: nothing retains its value when people act so terribly. Since he remained in control of himself, he was careful not to destroy an important utensil, and instead broke one that was already about to break. Although even this involved a degree of destruction, it was done for educational benefit and was therefore not prohibited. It is forbidden, however, to break utensils in a fit of uncontrolled anger, for such anger is itself severely prohibited. The Sages said (Shabbat 105b): “Anyone who becomes angry is as if he worships idols,” for one who loses control in anger becomes enslaved to his anger, and in this sense is considered like one who worships idols. [9]
[9]. Although the Sages said that one may not tear excessively for the deceased, one may tear many garments for exceptionally great Torah scholars. Thus, R. Yoḥanan tore thirteen silk garments for his teacher R. Ḥanina. Each time he removed the torn garment and put on an intact one, the memory of R. Ḥanina’s death overcame him again, and he tore his garment once more (Mo’ed Katan 24a; Tosafot, Bava Kama 91b, s.v. over).
According to Sefer ha-Ḥinukh §529 and Smak §175, one may destroy certain utensils for educational purposes: utensils that are already about to break, utensils that serve no useful purpose, or utensils that can be thrown to the ground without actually breaking. A good utensil, however, may not be destroyed even for educational benefit. Others maintain that one may even break a good utensil for educational purposes; this is implied by Tosafot, Kiddushin 32a, s.v. Rav Yehuda, and Hagahot Maimoniyot to MT, Laws of Kings and Wars 6:3. In practice, there may be no fundamental dispute; everything depends on the circumstances. As a rule, one may not break a good utensil for educational purposes, because the act of breaking itself appears to model a lack of self-control, to the point of violating bal tashḥit. In very rare cases, however, when people have acted severely inappropriately, one may “break the vessels” in order to impress upon them the severity of the matter. This is similar to Moshe Rabbenu’s breaking of the Tablets after seeing the Golden Calf, an act to which God agreed (Yevamot 62a).
If a person is fasting and wants to keep it secret, and food is brought before him, some authorities permit him to throw the food away if that is the only way to avoid revealing his fast (Ginzei Ḥayim, ma’arekhet bet §32), while others prohibit it (Yafeh La-lev II, 565:3).
