Maybe just one two very small brief comments here on the Chaim and then maybe we'll continue a little bit in Perek Hey of Yesodei HaTorah. So Chaim concludes: על פי זה שפיר פסק הרמב"ם דבעריות תיהרג ואל תעבור בכל גוונא אף בקרקע עולם כיון דגם ברציחה הדין כן דאינה נדחית בפני פיקוח נפש בכל גוונא והוא הדין לעריות דילפינן מינה דאין בה דין דחייה כלל לעולם ועל כן בכל גוונא תיהרג ואל תעבור אף בקרקע עולם ובשב ואל תעשה כמו שכתבנו.
Once you have the raya from Rabbi Akiva and Ben Petura, which within the shittas HaRambam as we discussed yesterday is machriach what the pshat in Mai Chazet says, so you see that even a רציחה בשב ואל תעשה, were there such a thing, the pshat is that there is no such thing, right? Chaim keeps saying you know let's say if you look at line five in the left hand column: הכי נמי אם הוה משכחינן דיהיה בו זה דין רוצח.
It's not clear the pshat is that there is no such heicha timtza that a person is mamash guilty of the aveira of לא תרצח בשב ואל תעשה but the whole thing is in terms of retzicha it's a totally abstract and hypothetical question but it makes all the difference in the world in terms of the hekesh to na'arah hameorasah but you don't have the case because of what Chaim said that Tosfos's example isn't an example of רציחה בשב ואל תעשה because when the person is being thrown on the tinok so he's an instrument in the hands of whoever is throwing him. Okay. But lechora even once we established that by retzicha Mai Chazet tells us that you can't be guilty of being me'abed nefesh to save a nefesh even if that would be beshev v'al taaseh. There's lechora still one link missing in the chain and that is if you would hold right the question in sort of the kol hatorah kulo dikka question that whether when a person practically commits an aveira be'ones so whether or not al pi din it's considered a ma'aseh aveira with a p'tur onash or whether al pi din it's not a ma'aseh aveira. So lechora you see over here that we're assuming because this Chaim l'shitaso the Rav used to quote that Chaim had raya in other contexts that this is the case that ones is considered a ma'aseh aveira but with a p'tur onash. Because when you think about it if ones is not a ma'aseh aveira so tehareg v'al ta'avor to avoid what? Again tehareg v'al ta'avor means should she resist even though resisting will mean that she'll be killed or should she not resist but if she doesn't resist it's still going to be ones, right? It's not as if we're talking about complying. Tosfos even Tosfos agrees that you can't do that, right? Even Tosfos who says that karka olam there is no חיוב יהרג ואל יעבור says but if she's being told להביא את הערווה עליה so then they also agree that that would be a kum va'aseh. So we're talking about whether or not she should resist at the expense of getting killed or not resist but either way it's going to be ones. So when the Rambam says no that she's mechuyaves to resist to be tehareg v'al ta'avor it's to avoid giley arayos be'ones. So yehareg v'al ya'avor is always when there's a ma'aseh aveira. There's no yehareg v'al ya'avor for a non-ma'aseh aveira. So what Chaim is not articulating here but which is necessary to... To understand the whole din is that ones is a ma'aseh aveirah. So Reb Chaim again thinks that that is independently true. He would quote the Toras Kohanim in Parshas Acharei Mos that the se'ir hamishtale'ach is mechaper. Again, so the se'ir hamishtale'ach is mechaper on everything. So the Toras Kohanim says it's mechaper on aveiros b'ones also. It doesn't just say בין בשוגג בין במזיד, but the Toras Kohanim says that the se'ir hamishtale'ach is mechaper on ones as well. So what is that to be mechaper for if there's no ma'aseh aveirah? There's nothing for the kaparah to relate to. Al korchach no, there is a ma'aseh aveirah with a ptur ones. Oh, if there is a ma'aseh aveirah, so then we can discuss whether or not there's the chiyuv of yehareg ve'al ya'avor. And the emes is, lichora you see that Tosafos also agrees with that, right? Because the only reason that when our Tosafos in Kesuvos דף ג עמוד ב and where Tosafos has it elsewhere, when our Tosafos explains why there's no yehareg ve'al ya'avor, it's only because the way they understand mai chazit is mai chazit by retzicha is to be passive. So when you transpose that with a hekesh to gilluy arayos, okay, so then one is allowed to remain passive. One can't be be'kum va'aseh, but one is allowed to remain passive. That's what mai chazit says. So when you plug that into the context of gilluy arayos, but for Tosafos also that's it's only for that reason that it isn't yehareg ve'al ya'avor. It's not because there won't be an aveirah, right? Tosafos doesn't give that reason either. So you see that in this whole debate, so the Rishonim seem to be taking for granted, whether it's the Rambam who halacha l'ma'aseh thinks that there is yehareg ve'al ya'avor for the isha, or whether it's the Ba'alei Tosafos who say the only reason there isn't is because the din of yehareg ve'al ya'avor by gilluy arayos is an extension, is a hekesh from shfichas damim. By shfichas damim the only thing mai chazit says is he can't be be'kum va'aseh, but you can be besheiv v'al ta'aseh. So both parties to that machlokes when it comes to the question of ones are clearly assuming that ones is a ma'aseh aveirah because otherwise according to the Rambam what is it that's yehareg ve'al ya'avor over here? What is it that's yehareg ve'al ya'avor? And for Tosafos why do you need the raya necessarily from mai chazit? You could be docheh the raya, but I don't know that it works according to the other Rishonim. Can I get a Sanhedrin with the Rif please? Thank you very much. So remember a few days ago we mentioned the machlokes between the Ba'al HaMa'or and the Ramban as to whether or not if you'll have avoda zara and gilluy arayos where the ones is motivated by hana'as atzmo, not by lehavir al das, is it still yehareg ve'al ya'avor? Right, so the Ramban says it is yehareg ve'al ya'avor because the chilluk between hana'as atzmo and lehavir al das is only relevant when the mechayev is kiddush Hashem and chillul Hashem and here the mechayev is the chomer of the ma'aseh aveirah. And the Ba'al HaMa'or disagrees. And the Ba'al HaMa'or says no, that by gilluy arayos and by avoda zara if it will be le'hana'as atzmo it's muttar. What was the Ba'al HaMa'or's raya? So the Ba'al HaMa'or brought a raya from the Gemara on עין ד עמוד ב. The Gemara says on עין ד עמוד ב that Rava amar hana'as רבא אמר הנאת עצמי שאני דאי לא תימא הכי הני כבקי ודימוניקי היכי יהבינן להו אלא הנאת עצמן שאני הכא נמי הנאת עצמן שאני.
What are these kevake vedimoniki? Rashi says כלי נחושת שנותנין בהם גחלים. So part of the avodah zarah service they needed ich veis copper frying pans or something. They needed copper pans to hold the coals. So they would forcefully conscript, they would forcefully take the klei nechoshes from Jews and it was muttar to give it to them. Why? Because they weren't motivated by, it wasn't that they wanted that the Jews should be complicit in avodah zarah, it's that they didn't have klei nechoshes and for their own use. They weren't, it wasn't because they know that it was assur for the Jews to give it to them, but it was because they needed it so it was le-hana'as atzman. So the, so here they're going to use the kevake vedimoniki for the avodah zarah service and the Gemara says that we're allowed to give it to them because the reason they want it from us is not to make us do an aveirah but it is to make us, but is le-hana'as atzman so they will have what they need. So the Gemara says that's hana'as atzman and it's muttar. So says the Baal HaMaor, so you see that hana'as atzman even by avodah zarah is muttar. Comes the Ramban, comes the Ramban and says that the raya is no raya. Let's see if I can find it here. So the Ramban says it's no raya because the aveirah that we would be guilty of in providing the klei nechoshes is not an avodah zarah-dikke issur, it's lifnei iver. What's the issur in let's say involuntarily giving, providing the ovdei avodah zarah with whatever props, whatever utensils they need to be oveid avodah zarah? It's not an avodah zarah-dikke issur, it's lifnei iver. So lifnei iver is shear aveiros. Yes, so shear aveiros even if it's be-farhesya is only yehareg ve-al ya'avor if it's le-havir al hadas, not if it's le-hana'as atzman. So what kind of raya is this to to to say that there's no yehareg ve-al ya'avor by avodah zarah unless it's le-havir al hadas? So generally it's said that the pshat in the Baal HaMaor and the nekudas hamachlokes between the Baal HaMaor and the Ramban is whether the lifnei iver of an aveirah is is sort of an extension of that aveirah. So that the לפני עור עבודה זרה is an avodah zarah-dikke issur and the same would be true in other contexts. Or no, the lifnei iver is its own issur. It's not that the lifnei iver of avodah zarah is an avodah zarah-dikke issur. It's an issur bifnei atzmo. So I don't know it's not such an easy sevarah to to attribute to the Baal HaMaor though that lifnei iver of avodah zarah is an avodah zarah-dikke issur. It's not not so easy to understand. Yitachen what the pshat in the Baal HaMaor is, that what the Baal HaMaor really holds is is the following. What's yehareg ve-al ya'avor, what the Torah is makpid on, what's yehareg ve-al ya'avor is not the ma'aseh aveirah of avodah zarah, but the חפצא של עבודה זרה. The חפצא של עבודה זרה. Again to try to clarify and and concretize. So so what's the difference between those two things? Take lifnei iver. The issur in in providing them with a klei nechoshes is not an avodah zarah-dikke issur, but on the other hand, if the mechayev of the yehareg ve-al ya'avor is the חפצא של עבודה זרה, so then Avada the lifnei iver of avodah zarah is facilitating, is paving the way for that חפצא של עבודה זרה. And no, so it's not that the Baal HaMaor thinks that in kol hatorah kullah, the lifnei iver of any averah, lifnei iver of ever min hachai is an ever min hachai-dik issur and the lifnei iver of kos yayin l'nazir is a nazir-dik issur. No, it's its own issur. So why is he why and how is he bringing a raya that you see from here that hana'as atzman is mutar by avodah zarah? Because by avodah zarah the mechayev of yehareg v'al ya'avor isn't the ma'aseh avodah zarah. It's that חפצא של עבודה זרה. Okay, if a person's gonna bow down to avodah zarah, so he's doing a ma'aseh of avodah zarah, you have a חפצא של עבודה זרה that's happening in the world. Over here by the lifnei iver, even though there is no ma'aseh issur on his part of an avodah zarah-dik issur, but what he's doing is contributing to the חפצא של עבודה זרה. So that l'chora is what the Baal HaMaor holds. That there's actually a raya from earlier that that's what he thinks as well. Hashta d'asinu l'hachi, so then yitachen as follows. Let's say you would hold in kol hatorah kullah that ones is not a ma'aseh averah. Or al kol panim ones b'shev v'al ta'aseh is not a ma'aseh averah. It's bichlal not a ma'aseh averah. And let's say rachmana litzlan in eishet ish would be ne'enas. Or one ervah would be me'anes and an ervah. So if you would ask is there a ma'aseh averah of gilliu arayos? The answer would be no. But if you would ask was there a חפצא של גילוי עריות? Yeah, avada yes. Avada yes, if you would have rachmana litzlan an eishet ish she'ne'enas. So even if you would hold like Reb Elchanan's Chemdat Shlomo, I think we discussed this earlier in the zman, even if you would hold like Reb Elchanan's Chemdat Shlomo that ones is not a ma'aseh averah, but you certainly certainly would say that rachmana litzlan in that case of an eishet ish she'ne'enas, a חפצא של גילוי עריות there was. That there certainly is. Oh, so if you say like the Baal HaMaor that the mechayev of the yehareg v'al ya'avor what the Torah says you have to be moseir nefesh for is not simply to avoid the ma'aseh averah of fill in the blank, gilliu arayos, avodah zarah, v'chulu, but to avoid being part, being a participant, being part of allowing the חפצא של עבודה זרה to happen, the חפצא של גילוי עריות to happen, so then the diyun as to whether or not the isha is yehareg v'al ta'avor would be independent of the question whether ones is a ma'aseh averah. You hear that rabosai? Does that mean that there's no dependence on onshin? On what? On onshin. On onshin, well either way that would be true right? But according to what we said before that even if there's no Torah onshin, the ma'aseh is what makes it according to Reb Chaim's zman? Again, so let me just try to explain so again. The Rambam holds halacha l'ma'aseh that if a woman is put in a situation of gilliu arayos, so she'd be mechuyevet to resist even if that will result in her getting killed rather than just passively allow herself to be ne'enas. The only reason Tosafos disagrees with that is because of their understanding of Mai Chazis. So we said l'chora you see בין להרמבם בין לתוספות that they're both of the opinion that ones is a ma'aseh arayah. Ay, it's a pasuk in פרשת כי תצא ולנערה לא תעשה דבר. Okay, the Torah said don't punish. Torah said ma'aseh averah b'ones is given an amnesty. But a ma'aseh averah it is because otherwise what's the yehareg v'al ya'avor about? Yehareg v'al... what do you mean al ta'avor? There's no over what? Over what if ones is not a ma'aseh averah? So if it will happen it won't be an averah. So al korchacha... so that's what we say. Then we're saying that l'chora l'chora again whether is the lashon a little bit difficult no so it means the lashon is a drop lav davka. We said that lichora at least would have a pushback to that ha'arah. And the Baal HaMaor's pushback to that ha'arah is that the mechayev of yeihareig ve'al ya'avor, let's say begillui arayos, is not that a person has to allow himself to be killed before he or she commits a maiseh aveira of gillui arayos, but a person has to allow himself to be killed before he or she is involved in a חפצא של גילוי עריות. L'mai nafka mina? The nafka mina is exactly this. Nafka mina is that even if you would hold that ones is bichlal not a maiseh aveira. How can you call it a maiseh aveira when the person is being ne'enas and it's besheiv ve'al ta'aseh? No, it's not a maiseh aveira, but אף על פי כן yitachein that you would still say but what's yeihareig ve'al ya'avor is the cheftza shel. That's what the Baal HaMaor al kol panim would tell us. So for the Baal HaMaor, you wouldn't have this raya. But let's say someone like the Ramban, so then you would, right? The Ramban who classified this as lifnei iver and because of that said the Baal HaMaor's raya is no raya. So he clearly thinks that it's the maiseh aveira which is the mechayev in yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. And if that's the case, it's not the... Okay. One ha'arah then. Another also just very small ha'arah here. We mentioned yesterday a little bit that it's a little bit ironic that the Rambam doesn't quote the גמרא בן פטורא ורבי עקיבא. You know, the raya nitzachas that at least within the shitos haRambam, to his understanding of ma chazis, to his psak of yeihareig ve'al ya'avor, he doesn't quote the Gemara. The emes is it's not a problem. Again, if you look up the sugya in Bava Metzia, it's as follows. Earlier in the sugya, the Gemara has a machlokes between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar whether ribis ketzuza is yotza bedayanin, right? Ribis ketzuza means that it's ribis d'Oraisa and that it was stipulated at the time of the halva'ah. At the time the malveh extends the halva'ah to the loveh, he tells him what the rate of interest is going to be. There's going to be a daily rate of interest of ch'veiss 10% and it's going to compound daily. And so that's ribis ketzuza that it was stipulated besha'as halva'ah. Okay. Issur chamur me'od. So what happens if the loveh paid the ribis? So then the question is, is there a chiyuv on the malveh to return the ribis? Is there a chiyuv on the malveh to return the ribis? That's the Gemara's question whether ribis ketzuza is yotza bedayanin or not. So the Gemara says that Rabbi Elazar is of the opinion, and this is how we pasken, that ribis ketzuza is yotza bedayanin, meaning that the loveh can turn around and take the malveh to Beis Din and Beis Din will force the malveh to return the ribis. That ribis ketzuza is yotza bedayanin. How does the how do you know that? Because the pasuk says אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית, pasuk in Parshas Behar. אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית ויראת מאלקיך וחי אחיך עמך.
So Rabbi Elazar says וחי אחיך עמך אהדרי ליה כי היכי דליחיי. Return the the ribis so that the loveh will have money to manage, to survive. So the Gemara says Rabbi Yochanan holds ריבית קצוצה אינה יוצאה בדיינין. What does he do with vechai achicha imach? And then the Gemara quotes the ברייתא בן פטורא ורבי עקיבא. That Rabbi Akiva darshens from vechai achicha imach dechayecha kodmin. So l'maiseh we pasken like Rabbi Elazar that ribis ketzuza is yotza bedayanin. Fine. And the Gemara doesn't quote and and the Rambam doesn't quote the whole case of Ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva. But ela mai, it's not a kasha kihu zeh on Reb Chaim. Because zol zain takeh that the way we pasken, we don't have Rabbi Akiva's drasha from vechai achicha imach. Reb Chaim's raya is somewhat Ben Petura says m'sevara, right? The raya is that you see that the sevara, the starting point in sevara בין לבן פטורא בין לרבי עקיבא is that ein matzilin nefesh if in because of that hatzala another nefesh is going to be sacrificed. the way the way Rabbi Akiva does. Okay and then maybe just to add add something to what we discussed earlier in the week. There is a Rambam, a remarkable Rambam at the end of פרק ז' הלכות מלכים. So the Rambam writes as follows. מי האיש הירא ורך הלבב כמשמעו, meaning not me'aveira shebeyado, but kishmou, that he lacks courage, שאין בלבו כח לעמוד בקשרי המלחמה. Listen carefully rabosai. ומאחר שיכנס אדם בקשרי המלחמה ישען על מקוה ישראל ומושיע בעת צרה וידע שעל יחוד השם הוא עושה מלחמה.
The Rambam is maarich, you'll take a look, every word is so beautiful here, you have to take a look at this. And then the Rambam concludes and says וכל הנלחם בכל לבו בלא פחד ותהיה כוונתו לקדש את השם בלבד מובטח לו שלא ימצא נזק ולא תשיגהו רעה.
So the Rambam makes an amazing amazing statement. He says that anytime a chayal is going lemilchama, וידע שעל יחוד השם הוא עושה מלחמה. An amazing statement. Every milchama, every milchama is a milchama about yichud Hashem. Why is it milchama yichud Hashem? Maybe the pshat is that the Arabs don't like us. Maybe that's the pshat. They don't like us. And earlier in history in the Middle Ages, when the persecution was at the hands of the Christians, the Christians didn't like us. So what's pshat that everything is al yichud Hashem? So the Rambam writes in Iggeres Teiman and it's klor, it's klor that he has the same thought in mind here. The Rambam writes in the Iggeres Teiman that when Hakadosh Baruch Hu made us the Am Hanivchar, so the umos ha'olam are rebelling against that. They resent that and they're rebelling against that. And it's that which fuels their sina towards us. And that's why the Rambam writes mefurash in Iggeres Teiman, he says they're really waging war against Hakadosh Baruch Hu in rejecting and rebelling against bechiras Yisrael. So yeah, ein hachi nami, the Arabs don't like us and ein hachi nami the Christians don't like us, but the reason they don't like us is because ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש, that segula mikol ha'amim. So bechiras Yisrael is an expression of yichud Hashem ba'olam and when you challenge bechiras Yisrael, so then that's a direct challenge to yichud Hashem. Well, so that's what we were saying again when we wanted to say pshat that the significance of asara is not pirsum, right? We said pshat that but the significance of asara is not pirsum, it's not a chashivus of a maamad, but the significance of asara is that really the chiyuv of yehareg ve'al ya'avor is when there's a challenge, when there's an attack on Yichud Hashem. Right, that's how the Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvos, Mitzvas Aseh tes defines the mitzvah. He defines the mitzvah as to die al emunas yichudo. So when the mitzvah is avodah zarah, when the ones is to be over avodah zarah, so that's a direct frontal attack on Yichud Hashem, whether it's betzina or whether it's befarhesya. It doesn't have to, you don't need farhesya. Kishal'atzmo, just minei u'vei, that's avodah zarah is an encroachment upon Yichud Hashem. When it's only she'ar mitzvos, so then if it's le'avir al hadas and you have a microcosm of the tzibur, you have a microcosm of the tzibur again, a tzibur that the presence of which attests to Yichud Hashem. The same way when that tzibur is attacked, וידע שעל יחוד השם הוא עושה מלחמה, so then that the כל בי עשרה שכינתא שריא, the fact that the tzibur bichlaluso and every microcosm of the tzibur attests to Yichud Hashem, so that's what makes it a situation of Kiddush Hashem and Chillul Hashem. That's what we were saying. And I'm not sure whether we explained, commented on this enough, but if you take a look here in פרק ה הלכה ג for a moment. I don't know whether we discussed this, but you have פרק ה הלכה ג, rabosai. So the Rambam writes וכל הדברים האלו שלא בשעת השמד, meaning she'ar mitzvos can only possibly be yehareg ve'al ya'avor if it's befarhesya, which means ba'asara mi'Yisrael. So all that is shelo bishas hashmad. Aval bishas hashmad, what does that mean? והוא כשיעמוד מלך רשע כנבוכדנצר וחבריו ויגזור שמד על ישראל לבטל דתם או מצוה מן המצוות יהרג ואל יעבור אפילו על אחת משאר מצוות בין נאנס בתוך עשרה בין נאנס בינו לבין גוי.
So bishas hashmad, so then there's yehareg ve'al ya'avor, the Rambam says on any mitzvah. Now there is a machlokes the Rambam and Rashi as to how to understand this din. This din that bishas hashmad is yehareg ve'al ya'avor on anything. The lashon haGemara on the bottom of עין דלת עמוד אלף here in Sanhedrin is as follows: אמר רבי יוחנן כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא שלא בשעת גזירת המלכות אבל בשעת גזירת המלכות אפילו מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור.
So what does that mean? Why is that? What is this din? So Rashi writes, אפילו מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור בשעת גזירת המלכות (again the Rambam substitutes the lashon bishas hashmad for bishas gezeiras hamalchus), אפילו מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור שלא ירגילו העובדי כוכבים להמיך את הלבבות לכך.
So the way Rashi taitches this din is that the reason it's yehareg ve'al ya'avor is because we can't allow the malchus, we can't allow the ovdei kochavim to think that we will bend under their gezeiros, because that will just encourage them to hold by their gezeiros and to impose gezeiros chamuros. They'll be goizer on ikrei hadas. So it has nothing to do with kiddush Hashem and chillul Hashem per se. It's clear from the placement in the Rambam, right? So the Rambam says beshas gzeiras hamalchus yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. And then in Halacha Daled he says, and wherever the din is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor and you're mekayeim, it was kiddush Hashem and chillul Hashem, and and then if you weren't. So the Rambam includes it under kiddush and chillul Hashem because the pashtus is like this. Pashtus is like this: that the Rambam learns pshat again. The thread that connects everything here is that there's a chiyuv of kiddush Hashem, chillul Hashem when something is an attack on yichud Hashem. If the annas is telling a Jew to be over avoda zara, that's an attack on yichud Hashem. If it's bifnei asarah, again as we just reviewed, that's also, if it's le'ha'avir al hadas, an attack on yichud Hashem. And if it's a shas hashmad, what's the definition of shas hashmad? To uproot Torah? That's also an attack on yichud Hashem. So here too you're not going to need parhesia, right? Here too you won't need parhesia because shas hashmad means it's not just the capriciousness of some individual annas who's spitefully trying to get one particular Jew to do an averah. No, it's an effort on the part of the malchus לבטל דתם או מצוה מן המצוות, so that again kishe'le'atzmo is also going to be classified as an attack on yichud Hashem. So it comes out very beautifully that according to the Rambam, usually when you review the dinim of kiddush and chillul Hashem, you say there are sort of three rules when it's yeihareig ve'al ya'avor. One rule is if it's avoda zara, the gimmel aveiros chamuros. Another rule is she'ar aveiros befarhesia le'ha'avir al hadas. And another rule is beshas hashmad, beshas gzeiras hamalchus, so then it's afilu mitzvah kallah. The Amis is, according to the Rambam, it's all really one din. That those three are just different expressions of the same thing. That what's the yeihareig ve'al ya'avor? Al yichud Hashem. The yeihareig ve'al ya'avor is al yichud Hashem. If it's a shas hashmad לבטל דתם או מצוה מן המצוות, so that's the same as avoda zara, that's the same as what's created by having it befarhesia with שאר מצוות להעביר על הדת. I don't remember whether, it could be, I apologize if I'm repeating here, I'm not sure whether we discussed it yet. But if you read in Halacha, Halacha Daled, who has a Rambam on hand in front of him? Itamar, you have it? You want to read Halacha Daled? Perek Alef Halacha Daled, Yesodei? Yeah, please. כל מי שנאמר בו יהרג ואל יעבור ונהרג ולא עבר הרי זה קידש את השם וכל מי שנאמר בו יהרג ואל יעבור ועבר ולא נהרג הרי זה מחלל את השם ואם היה בעשרה מישראל הרי זה קידש את השם ברבים כחנניה מישאל ועזריה ורבי עקיבא וחבריו.
Okay, stop there for a minute, please. So what did the Rambam tell us? Fine. So you're telling me, this we already discussed, right? You're telling me that wherever the din is yeihareig ve'al ya'avor, it's—whether it began that way or not, we discussed this already, right?—but it's kiddush Hashem, fine. And then he says if it took place berabbim, then it's kiddush Hashem berabbim. And if it took place at night, it's kiddush Hashem at night. If it took place in the day, it's kiddush Hashem in the day. And if it took place in Tu B'Av, it's kiddush Hashem in Tu B'Av. What's the—what's the chiddush here? What's the chiddush? So lemaiseh the pshat is like this, the pshat is like this. In light of the idea that we spoke about, again, that the relevance of asara is not pirsum. The relevance of asara is the microcosm of a tzibur which represents yichud Hashem. So what—it's like this: that kiddush Hashem berabbim is a different cheftza shel kiddush Hashem. It's not... If it happened at night it was at night. If it happened in a day it was at the day. The rabbim here isn't ברוב עם הדרת מלך. He's not telling us that if it happened in front of ten people it's ברוב עם הדרת מלך because ברוב עם הדרת מלך if it happened in front of fifty people it would be more ברוב עם and he doesn't bother telling you that. What he's telling you is this hagam that the mechayav of yehareg ve-al ya'avor let's say be-sha'as ha-shmad or by the gimmel averos doesn't require rabbim, but you should know that if it happens be-rabbim it becomes a different חפצא של קידוש השם. Why? Exactly because of what we said because of the significance of asara. If asara was just pirsum it wouldn't be a different חפצא של קידוש השם and then what the Rambam is telling you is just I don't know he's not telling you anything. Obviously if it happened be-rabbim it's be-rabbim we know there's a din of ברוב עם הדרת מלך. We know there's a din of ברוב עם הדרת מלך. What the Rambam is telling you is no if it happened be-rabbim you should know that kiddush Hashem be-rabbim because of what rabbim means in this context is a different חפצא של קידוש השם so you should know hagam that the mechayav to die al kiddush Hashem for avoda zara doesn't need rabbim hagam that the mechayav to die al kiddush Hashem be-sha'as ha-shmad doesn't need rabbim but if it happens be-rabbim you should know that it's a chalos and it's an even higher and greater form of kiddush Hashem. Rabbim is not just a ברוב עם הדרת מלך. It's an added meaning the yichud Hashem is as it were doubly protected and doubly niskadesh. Okay and then the only other he'ara I just wanted to add for today the few questions here but I don't know maybe tomorrow or whatever I don't know maybe at some point we'll sort of leave some throw out some questions but the other he'ara in the Rambam if you just want to just skip to Halacha Hey for a moment אם אמרו להם עובדי כוכבים תנו לנו אחת מכם ונטמאה ואם לאו נטמא את כולכם יטמאו כולם ואל ימסרו להם נפש אחת מישראל וכן אם אמרו להם עובדי כוכבים תנו לנו אחד מכם ונהרגהו ואם לאו נהרוג כולכם יהרגו כולם ואל ימסרו להם נפש אחת מישראל ואם יחדו להם ואמרו תנו לנו פלוני או נהרוג את כולכם אם היה מחויב מיתה כשבע בן בכרי יתנו אותו להם ואין מורין להם כן לכתחלה ואם אינו חייב מיתה יהרגו כולן ואל ימסרו להם נפש אחת מישראל.
Okay so as the Kesef Mishneh quotes a Mishnah in Terumos Yerushalmi in Terumos how do you understand this din? Let's talk about the second half of the din. Let's talk about the second half of the din. So the goyim lay siege to a group of Jews תנו לנו אחד מכם ונהרגהו ואם לאו נהרוג כולכם and the way the Rambam paskens again the Kesef Mishneh quotes it's a machlokes Amoraim in the Yerushalmi but the way the Rambam paskens it's even more dramatic that even if yichadu echad mehem hand over Reuven ben Yaakov if Reuven ben Yaakov is not chayav misa hagam that by not handing him over you're not going to save his life and adaraba everyone else is going to be killed so you're not allowed to hand him over. How do you understand that? Certainly according to the way Rashi Tosafos maybe even Rav Chaim within the Rambam understands mah chazis you don't begin to understand this lichora and let's say what does Tosafos say mah chazis means that the shtei nefashos hashkulos so you have to be שב ואל תעשה. Over here it's not shakol over here either way this person's going to get killed and the question is do you save everyone else? So there's no mah chazis here to tie your hands so avada you should hand him over avada you should hand him over when yichadu especially when yichadu echad mehem even if he's not chayav misa. To Rashi also, even according to Rashi, that that in order to be able to invoke vachai bahem there has to be a life saved, so here you're again even without yichadu echad you're saving lives and certainly with yichadu echad you're not sacrificing any life because this guy's gonna get killed anyway and you're saving, so how do you understand this din? So the teretz is like this, lichora it's it's clear this din of that that you can't comply isn't mi-din is not because of a is not because of it's not an application of mai chazit or something. It's that even bemakom pikuach nefesh you can't be over an issur mesirah. It's not it's not we're not talking about mai chazit and shfichas damim in this seifa, we're talking about mesirah. And the lashon al yimsaru was not coincidental, it means mesirah. Right, to hand to hand a Jew over for unjust treatment at the hands of of nochrim is is mesirah. So what we're being dan on here is not is not an issur giluy arayos, is not an issur shfichas damim so that we should think well the truth is the sevara of mai chazit doesn't apply here. So why can't you do it? No, what what we're being dan on, what what the din which which underlies these two piskei halacha is that the issur mesirah is is not nidcha. And that's how you understand that even if yichadu, even if yichadu if he's not chayav misa, it's still mesirah. That's how you understand the view of Resh Lakish which the Rambam paskens, so so what that yichadu? So what that they specified Reuven ben Yaakov by name? It's still an act of mesirah to hand him over. Ella mai if he's chayav misa, which then means that he's not going what what's going to happen to him at the hands of the nochrim is not disproportionate, so then that's not mesirah anymore. That's not mesirah anymore. If if the if what the nochrim will do to the Jew is not excessive, is not disproportionate, is is correct al pi Torah, it's not an issur mesirah. That lichora is is the pshat here in in halacha vav, okay we'll stop.