Kiddush Hashem 4

Okay so we're gonna try to see a part of the part of the Chaim today b'ezrat Hashem. So Tosfot says is mechadesh in a few places that the chiyuv of יהרג ואל יעבור by giluy arayot doesn't apply to the isha because she's karka olam. And that's how they feren for the fact that the sugya in Sanhedrin when it questions Esther's behavior so it ignores the fact that Esther is an eishet ish and it just asks not about the issur of giluy arayot of eishet ish but it just asks about being nibelet to a nochri befarhesya, she'at hashmad befarhesya. Why didn't the Gemara ask about Esther mitam giluy arayot? And the answer is because there's no chiyuv יהרג ואל יעבור on the isha by giluy arayot because she's karka olam. What's the sevara why should that be true? So Tosfot says because the whole din of יהרג ואל יעבור by giluy arayot is based on a heikesh to retzicha. What's the din by retzicha? The din by retzicha is that מאי חזית דדמא דידך סומק טפי? It's to be בשב ואל תעשה. It's to be בשב ואל תעשה. Okay. Chaim is medayek in the Rambam that the Rambam never mentions that distinction between the ish and the isha when it comes to יהרג ואל יעבור by giluy arayot. So apparently the Rambam does not agree with that. So the question is what do you do with Tosfot's hechreiach from the mai chazit? So maybe I think what we'll probably go back and read the earlier parts together, but for today let's begin in the left hand column from

אלא דרוצח גופא צריך עיון בזה. אלא דרוצח גופא צריך עיון בזה דבאמת יש לפרש מאי דקאמר הגמרא הכא סברא דמאי חזית דדמא דידך סומק טפי דלמא דמא דחברך סומק טפי בתרי גווני. או דנימא דכיון דשקולים הם שניהם על כן ממילא הוי דינא דצריך להיות בשב ואל תעשה ועל מעשה בידים יהרג ואל יעבור. או דנימא דכיון דשקולים הן ממילא אינה נדחית מפני פיקוח נפש ואין חילוק בין שב ואל תעשה למעשה בידים דלעולם אינה בה דין דחייה וממילא דהוי דינא דיהרג ואל יעבור בכל גווני וגם ברוצח גופא אם היה שב ואל תעשה בגוונא דיש בה דין רוצח גם כן אמרנו כיון דשקולים הם אין חברך נדחה מפני פיקוח נפשו וממילא יהרג ואל יעבור כיון דלא חלה דין דחייה ברוצח. ונראה שכן הוא כפירוש השני שכתבנו מהא דאיתא בבבא מציעא סב שם שמחלוקת בדרק ביד אחד בין קדימה לשמים וכו' עד שבא רבי עקיבא ולימד וחי אחיך עמך חייך קודמים לחיי חברך הרי דאף על גב דהתם הוי בשב ואל תעשה ועוד יותר דהוי התם דין הצלה כלפי רחמנא מכל מקום צריכין לקרא דוחי אחיך עמך דחייך קודמים ושמע מינה דדווקא בהצלה דאיכא קרא דוחי אחיך עמך קודמים אבל ברוצח דליכא קרא בכל עניין יהרג ואל יעבור אף בשב ואל תעשה בלא עבד מעשה אם אך יש בה דין רוצח ולפי זה שפיר פסק הרמב"ם דבכל עניין יהרג ואל יעבור אף בקרקע עולם כיון דגם ברוצח הדין כן דאינה נדחית מפני פיקוח נפש בכל גווני והוא הדין לעריות דילפינן מינה דאין בה דין דחייה כלל ועיקר ועל כן בכל גווני יהרג ואל יעבור אף בקרקע עולם שב ואל תעשה כמו שכתבנו.

So what are Reb Chaim's two tzdadim here in how to understand Mechoza's? What are the two options he presents in how to understand Mechoza's? What do you say? How do you understand? What are the two options here? So what are the two options? Either because your life and the other person's life are equal, therefore you can't play an active role in deciding who gets killed. Or because the two lives are equal, therefore the issur is never nidcheh. Okay, did anyone stake out either of these positions leaving aside the Rambam for now? Any of the others? Tosfos seems to hold the first one. Tosfos holds the first one. That the sevara is to be shev v'al ta'aseh, right? Sevara is to be shev v'al ta'aseh because the nefashos shkulos. And again, what's the second side? Again, please. What's the second side? Since your life and the other person's life are equal, therefore the issur is never nidcheh even in shev v'al ta'aseh. What's never nidcheh? The issur of retzicha. Is that Rashi? Is that what Rashi says in Sanhedrin and Yoma? Or is it different than Rashi in Sanhedrin and Yoma? What does Rashi say? Sevara?

סברא הוא שלא תדחה נפש חבירו דאיכא תרתי איבוד נשמה ועבירה מפני נפשו דליכא אלא חדא איבוד נשמה והוא לא יעבור כי אמר רחמנא לעבור על מצות משום וחי בהם משום דיקרה בעיניו נשמה של ישראל והכא גבי רוצח כיון דסוף סוף איכא איבוד נשמה למה יהיה מותר לעבור מי יודע שנפשו חביבה ליוצרו יותר מנפש חבירו הלכך קם דינא כדמעיקרא דלא דחי.

So what's Mechoza's according to Rashi? What's the sevara of Mechoza's according to Rashi? That since you don't know that your life is more yakara than your friend's life and either way there's going to be ibbud neshama, we shouldn't also have an aveirah being violated. Right. Correct. So that's the same as Reb Chaim's second side or no? I think so. I'm sorry? No. Why not? What's the difference? Because Reb Chaim's second side doesn't depend on the fact that either way there's ibbud neshama? No, lichora it is. I mean keivan de-shkulin hein means... But I think the difference is this. Lefi aniyut da'ati, again, could be we're going to come back and ultimately understand Rashi differently, but lefi aniyut da'ati, Rashi seems to be saying the following, at least lefi aniyut da'ati. Rashi seems to be saying as follows. What's the din of v'chai bahem? The din of v'chai bahem is that you can be over an issur to possibly save a life. That's what the din of v'chai bahem is. If either way, if either way there's going to be a loss of life, so then what's the heter to be over an issur? Right? The din of vachai bahem is וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם. The din of vachai bahem is that you can be mechaleil Shabbos, you can do whatever you have to do to save a life. But if you'll be over the issur and bevaddai still lose the life, so then what's the heter of vachai bahem? Right? Lefum rihata that's what Rashi is saying. Now, lu yitzuyar that the issur in question that would save Reuven's life at the expense of Shimon's life was not an issur retzicha, it would be the same svara, right? It would be the same compelling svara that there is no heter to be over any issur. There's no heter to be over any issur because the Torah's heter for being over an issur is to possibly potentially save a life, and over here where you're going to be over an issur to save Reuven's life at the expense of Shimon's life, so then there's no there's no heter. No heter. That's what lefum rihata that's what Rashi seems to be saying. Reb Chaim seems to be medayek, Reb Chaim seems to insist to say the svara is that you can't engage in retzicha. He doesn't say that you can't be over any issur. He says you can't engage in retzicha. Where do you see that?

או דנימא דכיון דשקולין הן ממילא אינה נדחית בפני פיקוח נפש.

What's the subject of einah nidhase? What's the subject of einah nidhase here? So the pashat is the subject is retzicha, right? Retzicha is the subject of einah nidhase. The same way you have in the last four lines from the end, כיון דגם ברציחה הדין כן דאינה נדחית. Right? So the pashat is retzicha is the l'chora is the unstated subject here of einah nidhase.

או דנימא דכיון דשקולין הן ממילא אינה נדחית בפני פיקוח נפש ואין חילוק בין שב ואל תעשה ומעשה בידיים דעולם אין בה רציחה דין דחייה וממילא דהוי דינא דיהרג ואל יעבור בכל גווני. וגם ברציחה גופא אם היה שב ואל תעשה בגוונא דיש בה דין רציחה גם כן אמרינן כיון דשקולים הם ואין חברו נדחה מפני פיקוח נפשו ממילא יהרג ואל יעבור כיון דלא חלה דין דחייה בהרציחה.

So Reb Chaim keeps emphasizing that the svara is the svara of ma chazis is that it can't be that an issur retzicha the definition of which is me'abeid a nefesh, it can't be that that issur is going to be nidcheh to save a nefesh. That's what the svara of ma chazis is. The Torah tells you a din of vachai bahem וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם. Fine, okay, so the Torah tells me be mechaleil Shabbos to save a life. Torah tells me you can eat neveilos u'treifos to save a life. The svara tells you that you without a pasuk you know that vachai bahem is not going to apply to issur retzicha because it's just makes absolute no sense to think that the Torah's telling you that the issur of being me'abeid a nefesh is going to be nidcheh to save a nefesh. It's just self-contradictory. So the svara is not that any issur in the world can't be nidcheh, it's not the way we lefum rihata were understanding Rashi, but it's bedafka a svara in that issur retzicha because that seems to be davar ve'hipucho. What are you telling me? That the issur again, what's definition of shefichus damim retzicha? Ibud nefesh. That the issur of ibud nefesh is is nidcheh le'hatzalas nefashos. is a tarte desasrei, right? So it's not that there can't be any issur in the world, that's what the sevara of mai chazis is. Right. Okay. Now. What's the raya from Ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva? What's the story of Ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva?

שנים שהיו מהלכין בדרך וביד אחד מהן קיתון של מים.

So what does Ben Petura say? So for whatever reason, again, maybe just because we don't need to know, we pasken like Rabbi Akiva, so Reb Chaim skips Ben Petura, right? But Ben Petura's lashon is מוטב שישתו שניהם ואל יראה אחד במיתת חבירו. So even though one of them has the kiton shel mayim, so the shev v'al ta'aseh is that he should drink, right? Even though he needs to go like this to drink, but that's shev v'al ta'aseh, right? Because he has the kiton shel mayim already. So Ben Petura says that in sevara

מוטב שישתו שניהם ואל יראה אחד במיתת חבירו עד שבא רבי עקיבא ולימד וחי אחיך עמך חייך קודמים לחיי חבירך.

So what's Reb Chaim's raya? Israel, what's Reb Chaim's raya? That you see you need a pasuk to teach you that that you can do shev v'al ta'aseh rather than ignore the chiyuv hatzala and so too by... and that's all the pasuk tells you, right? The pasuk only comes to tell you that don't think that if shev v'al ta'aseh you're not saving him, but you're saving yourself, don't think that's a problem. No, that's what you're supposed to do, right? And the pasuk never tells you, it never gives you a dispensation to save yourself shev v'al ta'aseh if there's an issur retzicha involved. So that's the raya, correct? Okay. So lichora the vort is like this, I hope this will come across clearly. The raya from Ben Petura, so what do you see from Ben Petura? You see that Ben Petura, excuse me, Rabbi Akiva doesn't disagree with Ben Petura in sevara, correct? It's only because Rabbi Akiva has a pasuk. In sevara Ben Petura is right. In sevara Ben Petura is right, you should split the kiton shel mayim. Why? Because in sevara you can't be matzil—it's a contradiction to be matzil one nefesh at the expense of another nefesh. Lemayseh, the other guy is going to die sooner by not splitting the water. If you split the water, so neither one will survive, neither one will make it to the yishuv, but the other guy will live longer. So lemayseh the hatzala is on his cheshbon. So in sevara Ben Petura is right, right? Rabbi Akiva only disagrees with Ben Petura because he has a pasuk. So there would have been or in sevara there's a contradiction in terms. It's self-contradictory. contradict to say what am I doing? I'm engaged in hatzalas nefashos. What do you mean you're engaged in hatzalas nefashos? But in being matzil this nefesh, you're making the other nefesh be lost even sooner, even sooner, and that would tell you that even you can't even save one at the expense of another שב ואל תעשה, so the pasuk only tells you no, as long as your life is in jeopardy, you don't have a chovas hatzala for the other person. Ignore him, he's not in the picture. But the pasuk never told you in terms of retzicha, so you see that this sevara is true. You see that there's a sevara that says that you can't be docheh the issur of ibud nefesh leshem hatzalas nefashos. And even lu yitzuyer that that issur of ibud nefesh was בשב ואל תעשה, that too you can't be docheh an issur of ibud nefesh leshem hatzalas nefashos. It's a contradiction in terms and there's no pasuk to counteract that sevara. So since in theory even איסור רציחה בשב ואל תעשה wouldn't be nidcheh, so when you have the hekesh to gilluy arayos, so even איסור גילוי עריות בשב ואל תעשה is not nidcheh, right? Ad kan devarav. Fine. Now lich'ora the vort is that ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva is only a raya because Reb Chaim interprets the mai chazit as he did. If you would have said pshat in mai chazit the way again we said lefum ri'ahati Rashi is saying, so then all ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva is irrelevant. ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva are talking about in terms of the chiyuv hatzala, and Rabbi Akiva says there is no chiyuv hatzala, chayecha kodmin. Now what mai chazit, our safek in mai chazit is does mai chazit tell you to be בשב ואל תעשה or does mai chazit tell you that you can't even be docheh any issur? So ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva isn't relevant. ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva is only relevant because if the sevara of mai chazit says that it's a contradiction in terms to say that you're going to be over an issur being me'abed nefesh to save a nefesh. So then Rabbi Akiva's raya, Rabbi Akiva in sevara you would have said you can't be matzil one nefesh at the expense of another nefesh. The pasuk tells you you can, but the pasuk never addressed the case of issur ibud nefesh. But there's no implication from ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva if you would have understood mai chazit to mean that the heter of pikuach nefesh is to be over an issur to save a life and there should be a net gain of a life and over here there's not going to be a net gain of a life. Let me see if I can say that more clearly, just one minute. ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva argue about when there's a situation of hatzala. So what do you do? Yishtu shneihem or the one who has the kiton shel mayim drinks? That's what Rabbi Akiva and ben Petura are discussing. Fine. What are we mesupak about in terms of mai chazit? We're mesupak does mai chazit say you should be בשב ואל תעשה or does mai chazit say that since either way you're going to lose a life, you can't be docheh any issur? Because the whole din of pikuach nefesh is that you docheh an issur to save a life. So what's the tzustel? Where do the two connect? They don't connect. But if what we're mesupak about is that maybe mai chazit is telling us that there's a contradiction in terms to say that you're going to incur an issur of, not any issur, you're going to incur an issur of ibud nefesh to save a life, so then you hear the raya from ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva. Meaning Rabbi Akiva and Ben Petura don't imply anything about whether the heter of pikuach nefesh should apply when anyway a life is going to be lost. But Ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva do imply something about the tartei desasrei of מאבד נפש להציל נפש. And that's why, again, to understand the difference between Rav Chaim and the Pnei Yehoshua to Rashi is crucial, because otherwise the raya of Ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva is no raya. Ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva have no, there's no implications from Ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva as to whether or not איסור בשב ואל תעשה can be nidcha if either way a life will be lost. There's no implications there. There's no implications in Ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva to the din of vachai bahem. But according to the way Rav Chaim set it up, the sevara of mai chazis, the second tzad is that it's not that any issur can't be nidcha. We have to understand why that isn't the sevara. But the sevara is, the sevara is that davka an issur of me'abed nefesh, that's what Rava told him. How can you be over an איבוד נפש להצלת נפשות? That's davar vehifucho. That's a tartei desasrei. That does a raya from Rabbi Akiva because you see in sevara it would have even been a tartei desasrei to say I'm being matzil nefesh at the expense of, I'm being matzil my own life at the expense of his dying an hour earlier. That would have been a tartei desasrei also. And is that, you hear that, Reb Moshe? Let's, you'll chazzer and then you'll come back tomorrow, we'll see whether what that made any sense. Now, maybe another he'ara here. Ostensibly the way this piece ends is very very unusual. Because the maiseh Rav Chaim doesn't faren for the Ba'alei HaTosafos. Right? Ostensibly what what you have up here again is Ben Petura and Rabbi Akiva. So everyone agrees that the sevara is that hatzolas nefashos, it's self-contradictory to be engaged in hatzolas nefashos at the expense of another nefesh. Rabbi Akiva modifies that with chayyecha kodmin, but everyone will agree that it's self-contradictory to be over an issur even bishev ve'al ta'aseh of איבוד נפש לשם הצלת נפשות, right? That's the conclusion. So the simple reading of it is that Rav Chaim comes down on the side of the Rambam, which is obviously not not, I don't know, that's usually not what happens here in the sefer, right? But itachen as follows, itachen as follows. And everything is such bedikduk dikduk gadol. You know, they tell they tell the story, they tell the story that Rav Chaim and the Netziv used to alternate. Each one gave shiur three days a week in Volozhin. So they they tell the story that once it was Rav Chaim's day to be saying shiur and the Netziv was listening in outside the door. And he walked away shaking his head in disbelief and he said, 'Er zogt rishondik.' That Rav Chaim says Torah like a Rishon. Not, er zogt rishondik. So the emes is that I don't know if there's another sefer amongst acharonim where he wrote rishondik as well. So every, you can be medayek in every word in Rav Chaim the way you're medayek in every word in the Rambam. So lich'ora the pshat is as follows. What did Ben Petura say? שנים שהולכים בדרך וביד אחד מים קיתון של מים. So what did Ben Petura say? What's the lashon again? Mutav... מוטב שישתו שניהם ואל יראה אחד במיתת חברו. The emes is like this. The emes is like this. The simple reading of the Gemara is that Ben Ptura doesn't say it's a chiyuv. The simple reading of the Gemara is Ben Ptura saying it's a middas chasidus. He says avada if you want, avada you can drink the kiton shamayim. You have the kiton shamayim, avada you can. Mutav, it's a middas chasidus that you shouldn't. And Rabbi Akiva says no, there's no room for such a middas chasidus. No one ever, ever entertained the idea that it was assur. If no one ever entertained the idea that it was assur, there's no implication that in fact the only thing that the Torah allowed is hatzalas nefashos, but it wouldn't allow an איסור בשב ואל תעשה. Again, what's Rav Chaim's raya from Ben Ptura? Rav Chaim's raya from Ben Ptura is צריכינן לקרא וחי אחיך עמך to tell you that you're allowed to drink the kiton shamayim. Otherwise it would have been assur to drink the kiton shamayim. Why did Rav Chaim read the Gemara that way? Because Rav Chaim is saying pshat according to the Rambam. According to the Rambam, you can't volunteer to die if there's no such chiyuv. There's no such thing as a middas chasidus to die if there's no such chiyuv. So according to Rav Chaim, the mutav sheyishtu shneihem according to the Rambam, mutav sheyishtu shneihem is a melitza. Mutav means that's the din. That's what has to be according to Ben Ptura. And Rabbi Akiva is saying no because of v-chai achicha. So then you have Rav Chaim's raya. But if your starting point is like the Ba'alei HaTosafos, like the other Rishonim who disagree with the Rambam and hold that you can volunteer for yehareg ve-al ya'avor, so Ben Ptura and Rabbi Akiva are not discussing whether you have the right to drink the kiton shamayim, avada you have the right to drink the kiton shamayim. Ben Ptura and Rabbi Akiva are talking about is there a middas chasidus to split it? So mimeila and yisachen, yisachen that that's why Rav Chaim didn't quote Ben Ptura. Because within the Rambam, the lashon of Ben Ptura is misleading as it were. Because according to the Rambam, you're not supposed to take that lashon literally. מוטב שישתו שניהם ואל יראה אחד במיתת חברו according to Rav Chaim, according to the Rambam, is a melitza. It doesn't mean that it's better. It doesn't mean that it's a nice thing to do. It doesn't mean there's a middas chasidus because there's no such thing. Because if the din is that you're allowed to drink, what right do you have to sacrifice your life? It's no different than if the din is ya'avor ve-al yehareg. If he's neherag v-lo avar, he's mischayev b-nafsho. So according to the Rambam, al korcha Ben Ptura is a melitza be-alma, and what Ben Ptura is really saying is you're mechuyav to share. Oh, you're mechuyav to share, so then that sets off the chain reaction of Rav Chaim's raya, right? So you see that the svara, the starting point in svara is what? That it's a contradiction in terms to save your life at the expense of his life. Comes Rabbi Akiva and says no it's not because chayecha kodmim, but the pasuk only limits the svara in terms of hatzala. It remains a svara that there's no way you could be guilty of an issur of ibbud nefesh to save a life. And that's exactly what the Rambam said. So the shitas HaRambam is muchreches. But the point is Rav Chaim knows and he intends it as a hechreach within the shitas HaRambam. It's a raya and a hechreach if you hold like the Rambam that there's no such thing as a middas chasidus to die. If there's no chiyuv to die, there's no such thing as a middas chasidus to die. So then when Ben Ptura said mutav, he doesn't mean mutav. He means hadavar mechuyav v-omed. It's a lashon sagi nahor, it's a melitza be-alma, but it's an absolute chiyuv. According to the other Rishonim, no. Take the Gemara at face value. What Ben Ptura was saying is you know what? It's a middas chasidus. Avada, avada it's muttar to drink the kiton shamayim. That no one ever questioned. You have the kiton shamayim, you have a right to drink it. Ella mai, comes Ben Ptura and is mechadesh, you know what? It's a middas chasidus ke-hai gavna that you're going to drink and watch him die. It's a middas chasidus not to do that. מוטב שישתו שניהם ואל יראה אחד במיתת חברו. Comes Rabbi Akiva and says it's no middas chasidus. So then there's no raya ki hu zeh. So the hechrech and the raya is in the Rambam l'shitaso. It's not intended as a hechrech and a raya legufo shel davar because that will depend upon what Ben Patora means which depends upon the machlokes. Is there such a thing as a midas chasidus to die when there's no chiyuv? Maybe just one last comment if you take a look in the Rambam for a minute, the Rambam we actually looked at the other day in Hey Zayin in Yesodei HaTorah, so you have Rambam?

ויודע שאפילו במקום סכנת נפשות אין עוברין על אחת משלוש עבירות אלו שנאמר ואהבת את השם אלוקיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאודך אפילו הוא נוטל את נפשך והריגת נפש מישראל לרפא נפש אחרת או להציל אדם מיד האנס דבר שהדעת נוטה לו הוא שאין מאבדין נפש מפני נפש.

So here's the Rambam's presentation mah chazis, right? This is the Rambam's explanation, his paraphrase of mah chazis. דבר שהדעת נוטה לו, that means svara, right? That's just the svara.

דבר שהדעת נוטה לו הוא שאין מאבדין נפש מפני נפש.

So that, right again, it's not that mah chazis tells you, this is where Rav Chaim got it from, right? It's not that mah chazis tells you that the whole heter pikuach nefesh to be over any issur is to save a life, so then it should be

דבר שהדעת נוטה לו הוא שאין עובר איסור במקום שיאבד נפש.

Right, that and the Rambam doesn't say that. The Rambam says the דבר שהדעת נוטה לו הוא is that it's a contradiction in terms. It's davar vehifucho to say I'm engaged in ibbud nefesh and what's the justification? Hatzalas nefashos. That's the svara. So this is where Rav Chaim, this is where he got it from. He saw it over here that that's what the svara is. The svara isn't, again, the Rambam isn't saying shev v'al ta'aseh. He's not saying דבר שהדעת נוטה לו הוא that don't be machri'a, be b'shev v'al ta'aseh. He says, no, you can't be מאבד נפש מפני נפש. So that's exactly what Rav Chaim says. Then mimeila with the Rambam l'shitaso that Ben Patora said a chiyuv and Rebbi Akiva only modifies that chiyuv l'gabi hatzala, so then there is one not small irony here. The question is what you do with that. The Rambam doesn't quote Rebbi Akiva. He doesn't quote that Gemara Ben Patora and Rebbi Akiva. You'll take a look in בבא מציעא ע"ב, you'll see the Gemara says that maybe the hechrech is not for this. Maybe it's for ribbis. Maybe it's nogea to dinei ribbis. So that's a question why Rav Chaim is not concerned with that. L'ma'aseh the Rambam doesn't quote Rebbi Akiva's din. So ayin sham.