Transcript

So maybe we'll again we'll hopefully bli neder get at some point be'ezras Hashem to the Sugin Kesuvos but maybe we'll just begin by going keseder in the Rambam in Perek Hey of Yesodei HaTorah.

כל בית ישראל מצווים על קידוש השם הגדול הזה שנאמר ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל ומוזהרים שלא לחללו שנאמר ולא תחללו את שם קדשי.

The phrase Kol Beis Yisrael is a very unique one within the Lashonos of the Rambam. So you'll take a look in the back in the Frankel Rambam there are a group of Acharonim of Mefarshei HaRambam who think that what the Rambam is conveying through the Lashon Beis Yisrael is that not only is it equally incumbent upon Anashim and Nashim but Katanim are also Metzuvim. And that by Kiddush Hashem the Dinim of Kiddush Hashem pertain to Katanim as well. So amongst those Rav Yaakov says it in Emes LeYaakov. He says it on the Pasuk in Parshas Emor ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל. So Rav Yaakov says as follows:

דייק הכתוב לכתוב ונקדשתי ולא כתב וקידשתם שמי או תקדישו שמי והיינו משום שנשתנה קידוש השם משאר מצוות שבתורה שבשאר המצוות המטרה הוא שיעשה המצווה כאשר ציווהו השם והיינו שהחיוב הוא על הפועל שיעשה מה שאין כן הכא העיקר הוא שיתקדש שמו ברוך הוא היינו שכביכול הוא הנפעל ומהאי טעמא נראה שגם קטנים חייבים במצווה זו וכל שמתקדש שם השם באיזה אופן שיהיה מחויב כל אחד לראות שיהיה כן ונראה שלזה כיוון הרמב"ם שכתב בפרק ה מיסודי התורה הלכה א כל בית ישראל מצווים על קידוש השם הגדול הזה עיין שם שלא מצינו לשון כזה בשאר מצוות התורה והיינו משום שכוונת הרמב"ם לכלול גם קטנים במצווה זו והשתמש בלשון זה ממה דמצינו בתהלים קטו יברך בית ישראל הקטנים עם הגדולים שהרי שלשון זה בא לצרף הקטנים עם הגדולים.

Okay. So first of all just to try to understand what Rav Yaakov means. Superficially he seems to be saying that Venikdashti as it were is a Din in the Cheftza, right? It's a Din that again that Hakadosh Baruch Hu, the Nifal Kavyachol, should be Mekudash as opposed to saying ich veis B'erev Tochlu Matzos. But L'chora he doesn't mean that the way it was just said superficially. L'chora he doesn't mean that because we certainly do have other Mitzvos hen Mitzvas Aseh hen Mitzvas Lo Sa'aseh that we define as being Mitzvos or Issurei Cheftza as opposed to Mitzvos or Issurei Gavra. So for instance the many many many Acharonim have that by Achilas Kodshim so there's also a Din that the Basar Kodshim has to be Ne'echal. Right, it's not just ich veis Mitzvas Matzah is not a Din that the Matzah should be Ne'echeles. It's a Mitzvah that the Gavra should eat a Kezayis Matzah. But by Basar Kodshim so the Mitzvah is that the Basar Kodshim should be Ne'echal. Many many Acharonim have this Yesod with different Rayas. That's how the Meshech Chochma has a Yesod in Hilchos Chametz U'Matzah. He says that when you say עשה דוחה לא תעשה so the Aseh and the Aseh and the Lo Sa'aseh have to be commensurate. They have to either both be in the Gavra or both be in the Cheftza. But if you'll have an Aseh in the Gavra and a Lo Sa'aseh in the Cheftza or vice-versa, so then they don't hit head-on to be able to say the Din of Dechiyah. I don't think Reb Yaakov is intimating that you don't find any other aseh which is in the cheftza. For instance, Tosfos in Bava Basra says, Tosfos in Bava Basra says what's pshat? Let's say if you don't give bikurim. You have grapes and you didn't give, you didn't bring bikurim to the Beis Hamikdash and give it to the Kohanim of oso mishmar, so it's not tevel. Meaning it's not the rest of the grapes are not assur bachila because you haven't, you haven't been koreish shem and brought the bikurim to the Kohen. Me'idach gisa in Eretz Yisrael, if you have an issa and you're not mafrish challah, so then that is tevel. If you're not mafrish trumos uma'asros, that is tevel. So Tosfos says one's a din in the gavra, one's a din in the cheftza. Bikurim is just a din in the gavra, so it doesn't affect the status of the cheftza. You have a chiuv to give bikurim, ולקחת מראשית כל פרי האדמה. Ma she'ein kein the chiuv, the other chiuv matnos kehuna such as challah, such as hafrashas trumos uma'asros, that's tevel because there the chiuv is that that issa should be set aside from the, excuse me, that challah should be set aside from the issa, that the trumah should be set aside from the tevel. So Reb Yaakov is not, is not intimating that all these distinctions are not correct. Lichora what he means is as follows: even when we talk about about mitzvos which are in the cheftza, so what we mean by that is it still begins as a mitzvah. But the chovas gavra you can explain what the mitzvah is or it can be formulated in either of two ways. You can say you have a mitzvah to eat this or you have a mitzvah that this should be eaten. So by achilas matzah it's choice number one, you have a mitzvah to eat matzah, and by psak kodshim you have a mitzvah that the kodshim should be eaten. But it still begins as a mitzvah. Ma she'ein kein lichora what Reb Yaakov means to say is the uniqueness of the pasuk of venikdashti, the uniqueness of mitzvah of kiddush Hashem doesn't begin as a mitzvah. As it were conceptually it begins as the Torah says venikdashti, it has to be that shem Shamayim should be niskadesh. That's what the pasuk is saying. It's not, it's not beginning as a mitzvah. And then mimaila it now applies who is, who to whom does this now trickle down, as it were. So this, it begins as a yesod, not as a mitzvah. Everything else, even when we talk about an aseh in the cheftza, a lo saseh in the cheftza, but lemaiseh it's not a yesod. It's not a yesod that psak kodshim should be eaten, it's a mitzvah that psak kodshim should be eaten. It's taka a mitzvah which is defined in terms of the cheftza, but it is first and foremost and primarily all along it's set as a mitzvah. Venikdashti is set as a yesod, it's not set as a mitzvah. It's set as a yesod that it should be, that has to be. Okay lemaiseh to whom, okay, so at the second stage it translates into a mitzvah. And what Reb Yaakov is saying is the din that ketanim are pattur, so that's when something begins as a mitzvah. But when something begins as a yesod and conceptually it's at the second stage that it translates into a mitzvah, so there there is no din that doesn't apply to ketanim. He doesn't say it, it could be. I don't have a girsah. Did you have a chance to see that Rif? Yeah, okay. Fine. So maybe that's the pshat in what Rav Yaakov was saying in terms of how he's reading what the significance is of the lashon nifal in venikdashti. That Rav Yaakov continues as follows:

ונראה שעל זה סמכו אבותינו בימי הביניים שמסרו נפשותם ונפשות ביתם

al Kiddush Hashem ובפרט לא להמיר הדת שבתחילה... wait wait before we come to that, I'm sorry. So fine, that's his first paragraph of the nifal. What's the second paragraph again? He says that that's pshat in the Rambam, that the Rambam holds that the lashon of Beis Yisrael in the Rambam comes to include ktanim. He says, why does the lashon Beis Yisrael convey that? So he says

מדי מצינו בתהלים יברך את בית ישראל הקטנים עם הגדולים.

So I don't know, I'm wondering whether according to Rav Yaakov it wouldn't be very, very meduyak the psukim in Hallel, in Tehillim. Right? You have the division of Yisrael, Aharon, and yirei Hashem. So you have three times. You have it first at the end of Lo Lanu, that first half of the kapitel. So you have

ישראל בטח בהשם עזרם ומגינם הוא בית אהרן בטחו בהשם עזרם ומגינם הוא יראי השם בטחו בהשם עזרם ומגינם הוא.

Then you have it again in the second half of that same kapitel: Hashem zcharanu yevarech יברך את בית ישראל יברך את בית אהרן yevarech yirei Hashem haktanim im hagedolim. Then you have it a third time in the Hodu l'Hashem, right? yomar na Yisrael yomar na Beis Aharon יאמר נא יראי השם. So the first time, so Beis Aharon is Beis Aharon all three times. בית אהרן בטחו בהשם יברך את בית אהרן yomar na Beis Aharon. Yirei Hashem is also the same all three times. יראי השם בטחו בהשם yevarech yirei Hashem יאמר נא יראי השם. But by Yisrael, so it's Yisrael betach b'Hashem not Beis Yisrael, Yisrael betach b'Hashem. It's יברך את בית ישראל and it's yomar na Yisrael. So according to Rav Yaakov it's gevaldig, no? So when you're talking about a chiyuv, talking about a chiyuv, be it a chiyuv have bitachon, a chiyuv give hodaah, so you're not talking to the ktanim. When you're asking Hakadosh Baruch Hu's bracha... Rav Yaakov's chidush is by Kiddush Hashem, it's not that he's saying that chidush by all taryag mitzvos, right? He's not, his chidush is by Kiddush Hashem. So when you're talking about you're saying bilashon tzivui betach b'Hashem you're not talking to Beis Yisrael because Beis Yisrael would imply ktanim as well. When you're talking about יאמר נא כי לעולם חסדו you're not talking to the ktanim as well, you're talking to the gedolim. When you're asking for Hakadosh Baruch Hu's bracha you definitely want the bracha on the ktanim as well, so davka there is the lashon Beis Yisrael. I don't know if Rav Yaakov would be maskim to that based on his understanding. You just have to work it out with the question is haktanim im hagedolim here is it modifying everything that came earlier or is there a difference between the lashon Beis by Yisrael and Aharon? So I don't know if so it could be that it doesn't, for that reason it may not work out because it's Beis Aharon by bitchu and by yomru also. What what we just said would only would only work out if the Ktanim u-Gdolim is modifying beis Yisroel and not beis Aharon and yirei Hashem. I don't know about that whole sofek. Okay. So back to the Rambam here again, halacha aleph.

בכל בית ישראל מצווין על קידוש השם הגדול הזה שנאמר ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל ומוזהרין שלא לחללו שנאמר ולא תחללו את שם קדשי.

keitzad?

בשעה שיעמוד גוי ויאנוס את ישראל לעבור על אחת מכל מצוות האמורות בתורה או יהרגנו יעבור ואל יהרג שנאמר במצוות אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם ואם מת ולא עבר הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו.

Fine. halachos beis ve-gimmel the Rambam now fills in the pratim of when there is a chiyuv yehareg ve-al ya'avor. First he tells us the gimmel aveiros, then he tells us she'ar aveiros if it's be-farhesya le-ha'avir al hadas, and then he tells you she'ar aveiros if it's a shas ha-shmad. That's going to be halachos beis ve-gimmel. And then halacha daled the Rambam writes, and in each case he tells you, so if it's she'ar aveiros but it's not be-farhesya ya'avor ve-al yehareg. If it is be-farhesya but it's hana'as atzmo still ya'avor ve-al yehareg. But if it's be-farhesya le-ha'avir al hadas it's yehareg ve-al ya'avor. And be-shas ha-shmad the Rambam says בין בפרהסיא ובין בצינעא yehareg ve-al ya'avor. halacha daled.

כל מי שנאמר בו יעבור ואל יהרג ונהרג ולא עבר הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו וכל מי שנאמר בו יהרג ואל יעבור ונהרג ולא עבר הרי זה קידש השם.

Fine. So this is the Rambam again as it was in halacha aleph as well, which we had occasion to discuss earlier, that a person doesn't volunteer for kiddush ha-Shem. That ya'avor ve-al yehareg isn't a heter, ya'avor ve-al yehareg is a chiyuv. There's no—it's a chiyuv. Fine. But the question is why does the Rambam repeat the first line in halacha daled is just repeating what he said in halacha aleph, right? The first line in halacha daled:

כל מי שנאמר בו יעבור ואל יהרג הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו.

That's exactly what he said in halacha aleph, right? That

שנאמר במצוות אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם ואם מת ולא עבר הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו.

The question is why the Rambam has to say it twice? Why why does he tell you twice that when the din is ya'avor ve-al yehareg that that if a person is neherag instead of being over הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו? So in the back there in the Frankel Rambam in the Sefer ha-Maftei'ach they have marei mekomos on this question. They quote from, I think it's from the Radbaz.

גם בהלכה א כתב כן והטעם שכפל דבריו דשם מיירי במכוון להנאת עצמו והכא במתכוון להעביר דאפילו הכי לא יהרג.

So the quote the Radbaz says that after the Rambam spoke in halacha beis about במתכוון להעביר על הדת so maybe you would have thought be-mai devarim amurim that the halacha ya'avor ve-al yehareg if a person is neherag instead of being over mis-chayev be-nafsho is when it wasn't le-ha'avir al hadas. It was whatever it was, hana'as atzmo by hana'as atzmo. But let's say it was le-ha'avir al hadas but there wasn't a minyan. It wasn't be-farhesya. It was le-ha'avir... So maybe here a person can volunteer because lemaiseh the fact that the kavonah is lehavir al hados, so maybe even though there's no chiyuv without a minyan, maybe here you can volunteer, so kamashmalon no, it's still true. Still true if the din is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor, he's mischayeiv benafsho otherwise. But the emes is even after you say what the Radbaz says, so you still have to understand, so why bother saying it in Halacha Aleph? Just wait until Halacha Daled and then it will be clear. No, if you say something at the beginning of the shiur and then it's not going to be clear whether it applies to what you say later in the shiur, so don't say it in the beginning of the shiur and just say it at the end of the shiur. So why couldn't the Rambam just hold off and first tell it to us in Halacha Daled? So it could be as follows. Let's re-read Halacha Aleph for a moment. Beis

כיצד בשעה שיעמוד גוי ויאנוס את ישראל לעבור על אחת מכל מצוות האמורות בתורה או יהרגנו יעבור ואל ייהרג שנאמר במצוות אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם ואם מת ולא עבר הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו.

And what was Halacha Daled?

כל מי שנאמר בו יעבור ואל ייהרג ונהרג ולא עבר הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו.

So in Halacha Aleph it's ואם מת ולא עבר, right? In Halacha Daled it's veneherag velo avar. So it could be as follows. If the Rambam would have only told us the halacha in Halacha Daled, let's say it this way. By telling us the din of lo avar but rather he dies, mischayeiv benafsho right away, the Rambam is emphasizing that this din is integral to the din of vechai bahem. What I mean is as follows. We discussed last year I guess in Shabbos that the Rambam in Perek Beis. Does anyone have a Zmanim by any chance? Does anyone have a Zmanim with a noseh? Thank you. So the Rambam Perek Beis of Hilchos Shabbos. I'm not to repeat everything we saw then, but in Perek Beis of Hilchos Shabbos the Rambam has as follows. כשעושין דברים האלו what you have to do for a חולה שיש בו סכנה on Shabbos

אין עושין אותן לא על ידי גויים ולא על ידי קטנים ולא על ידי עבדים ולא על ידי נשים כדי שלא תהא שבת קלה בעיניהם אלא על ידי גדולי ישראל וחכמיהם ואסור להתמהמה בחילול שבת לחולה שיש בו סכנה שנאמר אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם הא למדת שאין משפטי התורה נקמה בעולם אלא רחמים וחסד ושלום בעולם. גם אני נתתי לכם חוקים לא טובים ומשפטים לא יחיו בהם.

So the Rambam says that you can infer, you can recognize from the din of וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם that mishpetei ha-Torah are not rachmana litzlan nekamah ba'olam, but they're רחמים וחסד ושלום בעולם. So we juxtapose this to the Rashi in Yoma. Rashi in Yoma says, Rashi in Yoma says, it says in Sanhedrin here in ayin daled: דכי אמר רחמנא לאו על מצוות השם, excuse me,

דכי אמר רחמנא לאו על המצוות משום וחי בהם משום דיקרא בעיניו נשמה של ישראל.

So Rashi says what the din of pikuach nefesh, Rashi's emphasis within the din of pikuach nefesh is יקרא נפש אחת מישראל, יקרא נפש אחת מישראל. If that's the only thing you have, so then the way you would understand the din of pikuach nefesh is that here you have the hatzalas nefashos, here you have Shabbos, so which one wins out? Hatzalas nefashos wins out, right? There's taka a clash and hatzalas nefashos wins out. יקרא נפש אחת מישראל. If you say like that, if you emphasize that within the din of pikuach nefesh it's יקרא נפש אחת מישראל, it doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the mitzvos. It's that hatzalas nefashos wins out. The way what the Rambam is emphasizing is not so much the יקרא נפש אחת מישראל, again the two are not really, I don't mean to suggest that the two are contradictory, that what Rashi and the Rambam says are contradictory, but the point is the contrast helps accentuate what the Rambam is saying is that what the din of pikuach nefesh points to is that there is no Shabbos במקום חולה שיש בו סכנה. In order to see something about mitzvos ha-Torah or to see it as compellingly as the Rambam does, so the pshat is, you know how you see that משפטי התורה רחמים וחסד ושלום בעולם, the mitzvos are not נוהגות במקום ספק סכנה. Mitzvos are not נוהגות. It's not pshat that the mitzvah is there and that hatzalas nefashos overrides it, the mitzvah isn't there because the mitzvos are רחמים חסד ושלום בעולם, they're not there, they're not there. שבת הרי הוא כחול לכל דבר, it's not Shabbos לגבי החולה שיש בו סכנה. And that's the Rambam's understanding of vachai bahem, not that vachai bahem can override a mitzvah, that vachai bahem is stronger than a mitzvah, vachai bahem is built into every mitzvah, the mitzvah of Shabbos is vachai bahem through shemiras Shabbos and the mitzvah of nevelas utreifas is vachai bahem through לא תאכל כל נבלה. So if that's the case, so where vachai bahem applies, you can't volunteer to die to rather than take advantage of vachai bahem. Because vachai bahem says there is no mitzvah over here, right? That's when we talk about the machlokes between the Rambam and the Ra'avad that we spoke about earlier this year, that a person can volunteer whether a person can volunteer for kiddush Hashem when he's not metzuveh. So lichora the discussion only begins if you hold that there is a mitzvah that a person will be mikayem. Let's say an oness comes, you're sitting and you're reading the Wall Street Journal, and an oness comes and says either stop reading the Wall Street Journal or I'm gonna kill you. And you say I'm gonna be moser nefesh, I'm gonna be moser nefesh. So what will the Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam say about that? Okay you have to be moser nefesh for a mitzvah, you can't be moser nefesh for what. no mitzvah, not that the mitzvah is nidcheh, there is no mitzvah, and that's why the Rambam right away tells you the what's accomplished by telling you that אם עבר ולא נהרג, excuse me, that אם מת ולא עבר הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו, what's accomplished by telling this right away in halacha alef toch k'dei dibbur when he tells you vechai bahem is to tell you this is an automatic corollary of the din of vechai bahem. If he would just tell it to you in halacha daled, you could have said as follows: you could have said, look, the same way when the Torah says עשה דוחה לא תעשה, it's not for you to choose to be nizhar on the lo ta'aseh and be mevatel the aseh. So too the Torah said pikuach nefesh is doche, is doche the mitzvah. It's not for you to choose that I want to be nizhar on the mitzvah and I'll be mochel on the pikuach nefesh. See, that you could have said that and and you wouldn't have known more than that if the Rambam had only said in the halacha daled. So ka mashma lan tells us no, toch k'dei dibbur, as soon as I tell you the din of vechai bahem, right away I have to tell you the din that im meit, and that's why the Rambam says im meit, right? Because he's not talking about the dinim of kiddush Hashem here. He's telling you about the din of vechai bahem. אם מת ולא עבר הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו because he gave his life up for nothing. He didn't give his life up for Shabbos because there was no Shabbos. Once, once, once there was a safek sakanah, there was no Shabbos. It's like giving his life up to read the Wall Street Journal. There's no, there's no mitzvah. He gave his life up for nothing. So by telling it to you right away in halacha alef, the Rambam is telling you this is an automatic corollary of the correct understanding of vechai bahem. Now, ein hachi nami. Now the Advas is right, but maybe, maybe the the the presence of a motivation of leha'avir al hadat, so maybe, maybe that creates an optional mitzvah of kiddush Hashem. So the Rambam repeats it again in halacha daled. Nothing was nischadesh in halacha beis to to make you to make you modify it. Possibly, I'm not sure. Possibly, I'm not sure. The Rambam in Hilchos Shabbos might also help us understand. Again, if you reread halacha alef for a moment,

כל בית ישראל מצווים על קידוש השם הגדול הזה שנאמר ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל ומוזהרין שלא לחללו שנאמר ולא תחללו את שם קדשי.

Okay, so the Rambam is introducing the mitzvos of kiddush and chillul Hashem. So now what should he do? He should tell you when he should describe when there's a chiyuv kiddush Hashem, when there's an issur chillul Hashem. So what's the first thing he does? He tells you when there isn't kiddush Hashem, when there isn't chillul Hashem, right? Keitzad? Keitzad means how so? So the how so should be he should begin with the gimmel aveiros and after he tells you the gimmel aveiros he should tell you about שאר עבירות בפרהסיא להעביר על הדת and then he should tell you about sha'at shmad. Then he should tell you that anything I didn't mention there's no קידוש או חילול השם. But the Rambam says keitzad there's a mitzvah of kiddush and chillul Hashem and he begins with ya'avor v'al yeiareg. He doesn't begin with yeiareg v'al ya'avor. So Rav Soloveitchik points this out. So yitachen in light of the Rambam in Hilchos Shabbos and especially the fact that the Rambam attributes, right, the lashon of the Rambam there is that people who who who depict doing melacha on Shabbos for a choleh as chillul Shabbos, who say... So I'm not sure whether this is correct, but itachen that the Rambam thinks that the meaning it's clear for the Rambam again without this question, without Reb Aaron's he'oros to this question. So it's clear according to the Rambam that that if a person is neherag or meis where the din is ya'avor v'al yeherag, the Rambam thinks that that person is distorting all of Torah. It's a distortion of all of Torah, right? The correct inference from the din pikuach nefesh is that משפטי התורה רחמים וחסד ושלום בעולם. So if a person doesn't practice the dinim of pikuach nefesh, so then he's distorting all of Torah. He's not just making one isolated error, it's a distortion of all of Torah, distortion of all of Torah. And what's more, if he takeh is zariz and takeh does follow the dinim of v'chai bahem and pikuach nefesh the way it's supposed to be, so then he's projecting the correct image, he's upholding the correct image of רחמים וחסד ושלום בעולם. So itachen for that reason that the ya'avor v'al yeherag is also again here's where the everything until now was totally muchach. Here the question is whether this next link is strong enough also, but itachen that what the Rambam means is that's also a kiddush Hashem or chillul Hashem of of a certain sort. The ya'avor v'al yeherag is also a kiddush Hashem, and if he's neherag v'lo avar במקום שהיה לו לעבור, that was a chillul Hashem. It was a chillul Hashem. Again lechora it's it's even more nitan l'he'amer when you when you look at halacha yud-aleph. Hagam that halacha yud-aleph the Rambam only addresses to a to an אדם גדול בתורה מפורסם בחסידות, but there the Rambam says that when you if a person elicits a response of אשרי אביו שלמדו תורה אשרי רבו שלמדו תורה, so then he's mekadesh shem shamayim. And if he elicits a response of

אוי לו לאביו שלמדו תורה אוי לו לרבו שלמדו תורה,

so then that's a chillul Hashem. So once that can be described as kiddush and chillul Hashem, so then lechora maybe it's also nitan l'he'amer that that's the pshat over here. Hayos that by being by being meis or being neherag where where the din is that that he should have been ya'avor, given what the Rambam says as to what that implies, the way that depicts all of Torah, so then this kiddush and chillul Hashem both ways. The ya'avor v'lo yeherag is also a kiddush Hashem, is also or if the person doesn't do it rachmana litzlan is a chillul Hashem. And again and all of which would explain why within the Rambam's understanding of v'chai bahem it just it can't be that you can volunteer, right, it just it can't be that you volunteer because it's much more than just a heter to save your life, it's much more than even a chiyuv to save your life. It's accurately projecting what what Torah u'mitzvos are.

במה דברים אמורים הלכה ב' בשאר מצוות חוץ מעבודה זרה גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים לשלוש עבירות אלו אם יאמר לו עבור על אחת מהן או תיהרג ייהרג ואל יעבור.

Okay. So here the there is a major major machlokes in the Rishonim. You have the Ba'al HaMa'or and Ramban in the end of Ben Soreir u'Moreh. The question is the Gemara distinguishes between lehavir al das and hana'as atzmo. What the motivation of the annas is. So the Ba'al HaMa'or thinks that that distinction holds true for the gimel aveiros as well. Dehainu, let's say a person makes himself into an avodah zarah because of his megalomania. He makes himself into avodah zarah and then memaila it's part of that same megalomania that he's trying to be m'annes everyone to bow down to him. So that's mistama hana'as atzmo. It's also a form of hana'as atzmo. He's not doing it in the name of in the name of his avodah zarah-dik religion to l'havir al hadas of Torah. It's also it's it's his hana'as atzmo. And a fortiori by gilliu arayos it's the the distinction you can certainly have both scenarios. So the Ba'al HaMaor's chiddush that he thinks that even by avodah zarah and gilliu arayos it's only yehareg v'al ya'avor if the onnes נתכוין להעביר על הדת. But if it would be hana'as atzmo, it's not yehareg v'al ya'avor. Ramban brings rayos to contradict it and says it's wrong. And then the Ramban says and what's more I'll explain to you why it's not nitan l'hei'amer. He says it's not nitan l'hei'amer because by the gimmel aveiros it's yehareg v'al ya'avor not mitzad kiddush Hashem and chillul Hashem. It's because these aveiros are so chamuros that they're an exception to the rule of v'chai bahem. So the fact that a person has to even b'tzina die rather than be over avodah zarah, be migaleh arayos, and engage in shfichus damim is not because there's a form of kiddush Hashem and chillul Hashem. It's because these gimmel aveiros are so chamuros the Torah singles them out as being so chamuros that they're an exception to the rule of v'chai bahem. Clearly, clearly the whole distinction between l'havir al hadas and hana'as atzmo is only relevant in creating a context of kiddush and chillul Hashem. Is this a test of religion or not? Okay, so if it's l'havir al hadas, it's a test of religion. If it's hana'as atzmo, it's not a test of religion, it's just the goy's convenience. So that's what the Ramban says, the distinction has no place. It's just totally wrong when applied to the gimmel aveiros because there it's the chomer ha'aveira. Pashta says our Tosfos here in Kesuvos is saying the same thing, right? If if you had a chance to see the Tosfos here in gimmel amud beis, so the Rivam is disagreeing with Rabbeinu Tam. Rabbeinu Tam brought a raya from Esther that bias akum isn't considered gilliu arayos. Bias akum for an eishess ish, even for an eishess ish, is not considered gilliu arayos, and that's why the Gemara in Sanhedrin only asked how come Esther wasn't moser nefesh because it was b'farhesia. Why did the Gemara have to ask because it was b'farhesia? Even b'tzina she should have had a chiyuv of limsor nefesh because she was an eishess ish. So Rabbeinu Tam brought a raya from there that bias akum is not yehareg v'al ya'avor, is not gilliu arayos. The Rivam says it's not true. Bias akum for an eishess ish is gilliu arayos, it is yehareg v'al ya'avor. So what are you going to do with Rabbeinu Tam's raya from Sanhedrin? How come the Gemara only questioned Esther's behavior b'toras shear aveiros, not b'toras gilliu arayos? So the Rivam answers

והא דלא פריך התם גילוי עריות הוה דפשיטא דאיכא לשינויי קרקע עולם היא ואין לה למסור עצמה אבל לעניין חילול השם לא היה נראה לו שיועיל טעם דקרקע עולם ומשני קרקע עולם מהני סבר אפילו חילול השם ליתא.

So the Rivam says the Gemara knew the svara and the chilluk of karka olam. The Gemara knew that that that you can be m'chalek between being passive and and being active. The Gemara knew that l'gabbi the gimmel aveiros where the mechayev of yehareg v'al ya'avor is the ma'aseh aveira, so a ma'aseh aveira which is totally passive, there is no chiyuv yehareg v'al ya'avor. That the Gemara knew as a davar pashut. The Gemara thought when it comes to the mechayev of yehareg v'al ya'avor by shear aveiros b'farhesia, there the mechayev isn't the ma'aseh aveira, the mechayev is kiddush v'chillul Hashem. There the Gemara didn't know that that karka olam should make a difference. There the Gemara thought either way it's קידוש השם וחילול השם kamashmalan even within that mechayev karka olam makes a difference is is a critical distinction. Fine, so that's the machlokos between the Ramban and the Ba'al HaMa'or whether the mechayiv of yehareg v'al ya'avor by the gimel averos is the chomer averah, which is the Ramban and pashtus the Riva and in our Tosfos as well, or according to the Ba'al HaMa'or it's also kiddush and chillul Hashem. The Rambam hagam that he doesn't have the Ba'al HaMa'or's distinction of hana'as atzmo versus l'ha'avir al hadas by the gimel averos, so even though he doesn't have the Ba'al HaMa'or's application, but he seems to be—we have to talk about this more carefully—in the Ba'al HaMa'or's camp. I mean he's talking about the gimel averos here under the heading of kiddush and chillul Hashem. So he clearly thinks that the mechayiv is kiddush and chillul Hashem, ela mai, it's kiddush and chillul Hashem even without the intention of l'ha'avir al hadas. But we're going to be'ezras Hashem come back and try to elaborate that a little bit of an arichus. All right, so maybe we'll stop here.