Vol 27.19 - Acharei3             Spanish French Audio  Video

Hebrew Text:

Page133   Page134   Page135   Page136   Page137   Page138   Page139   Page140  

Summary:
(5744) Boundary of deferring Shabbat for Pikuach Nefesh (saving a life) (Tal. Yoma 85 a,b, Rambam Hil. Shabbat 2:3)

The innovation concerning the maxim ((Tal. Yoma 82a, Sanh.74a, Rambam Hil. Yesodey haTorah 5:1) "Pikuach Nefesh takes precedence over hthe entire Torah";
 
Explanation of the differences in the aforementioned two places in Rambam.

Translation:

1) Regarding the concept of “saving a human life", the Talmud  'i states: “Whence do we know that in the case of danger to human life the laws of the Sabbath are suspended?” The Talmud   'ii  then brings many expositions, and follows on to say, that one of the expositions is irrefutable –its source is from the verse {18,5}((in our Torah portion iii   You shall observe my statutes and my ordinances, which a man shall do and live by them. I am the Lord” – “”He shall live by them” but he shall not die because of them”ivthere is nothing that can stand before [the duty of] saving life, with the exception of idolatry, incest and bloodshed [which are prohibited in all situations]”. Then why do we need a separate exposition of “He shall live by them” that danger to human life suspends the laws of the Sabbath?

It seems wondrous: There is a rule regarding all realms of Torah that “
Additionally, regarding the rule 'v Transgress and suffer not death' it is brought down in many places that this rules is learned from the same verse ”He shall live by them” but he shall not die because of them”, and therefore it is understood, from the fact that the Talmud brings this specific exposition in the case of Shabbos, it shows that it is not the same idea (stated in other places), rather something different, which is uniquelyconnected to Shabbos – this is not understood: A) what is in the precise language and uniqueness of “”He shallLive by them” that relates to Shabbos? B-) The verse:” You shall observe…he shall live by them” seems like it is principally talking about commandments in general, and not specifically regarding Shabbos?
In the same fashion, we must understand the Rambam, for he also brings the exposition twice. Previously in the laws of Yesodey HaTorah ((Halacha one vi) he says:” What is implied? Should a gentile arise and force a Jew to violate one of the Torah's commandments at the pain of death, he should violate the commandment rather than be killed, because (Leviticus 18:5) states concerning the mitzvot: "which a man will perform and live by them." [They were given so that] one may live by them and not die because of them. If a person dies rather than transgress, he is held accountable for his life.” And later in the laws of Shabbos vii((Halacha 3) he reiterates:” It is forbidden to hesitate before transgressing the Sabbath [laws] on behalf of a person who is dangerously ill, as [reflected in the interpretation in the phrase of Leviticus 18:5,] "which a person shall perform to live through them," as "['to live through them'] and not to die through them."
It’s not understood (as we stated above regarding the Talmud), why does he bring the same exposition twice?
2) It seems possible to answer: in the laws of Shabbos ((Halacha 3) the Rambam adds:” This teaches that the judgments of the Torah do not [bring] vengeance to the world, but rather bring mercy, kindness, and peace to the world.” But in laws of Yesodey HaTorah – regarding all (other) commandments, he does not say that statement. From this we understand, that this statements is only related to matters of life that suspend the Shabbos. Additionally, as the Rambam continues regarding Shabbos ((Halacha 3): “Concerning those non-believers who say that [administering such treatment] constitutes a violation of the Sabbath and is forbidden, one may apply the verse [Ezekiel 20:25]: "[As punishment,] I gave them harmful laws and judgments through which they cannot live."”
We may be able to explain the reasoning behind it. All the commandments in for which we say that “there is nothing that can stand before [the duty of] saving life” and “he should violate the commandment rather than be killed” – is itself a separate law, meaning to say, that it is not a clarification that in the situation endangering lives there is not an obligation in fulfilling the commandment – rather the obligation remains, [the duty of] saving life only suspends the obligation.
In contrast, when it comes to Shabbos the Rambam saysviii: For a person who is dangerously ill is that the Sabbath should be considered as a weekday regarding all his needs” which means, not that [the duty of] saving life suspends the prohibition of labor on Shabbos, rather it makes the Shabbos “as a weekday” when it comes to one who is dangerously ill, there never was in the first place (“regarding all his needs”) the Shabbos.
[As the Magid Mishnahix explains the opinion of the Rambam, that when we say regarding the Shabbos “If possible, is should be done in an uncharacteristic manner” when doing labor for the ill – this was not said in the case of the dangerously ill, because when it comes to the dangerously ill it is “as a weekday regarding all his needs”, and we “desecrate (Shabbos) for all his needs, even though had we {not}refrained from doing this for him:” it would not* be a danger]
Therefore the Rambam repeats himself again (regarding Shabbos) the exposition “"which a man will perform and live by them." [They were given so that] one may live by them and not die because of them” and adds “This teaches that the judgments of the Torah do not [bring] vengeance to the world, but rather bring mercy, kindness, and peace to the world” in order to say, that when it comes to matters of life and death, the rules of the Torah (prohibitions on Shabbos) in the first place were not said in such a situation (not like other prohibitions which are suspended). Therefore, the Rambam continues:” : “Concerning those non-believers who say that [administering such treatment] constitutes a violation of the Sabbath and is forbidden ,one may apply the verse...judgments through which they cannot live."” By which is emphasized that these laws (transgressing the Shabbos) are turned to something not good.
In other words, by other commandments the context is in an overwriting manner, matters of saving a life suspend the prohibition, in contrast to Shabbos – it becomes permitted, the prohibition never in the first place applied to the case of the dangerously ill “for it is like a weekday”.
3) We may additionally say that this is also the reason in the discrepancy in the language of the Rambam:
In laws of Yesodey HaTorah, regarding all commandments he brings the exposition:” because [Leviticus 18:5] states concerning the mitzvot: "which a man will perform and live by them." {And he repeats over}(They were given so that-) one may live by them and not die because of them” in contrast to what he says in the laws of Shabbos:” "which a person shall perform to live through them," and not to die through them." And he does the repeat the words” “to live through them”
The explanation:
In all commandments, it is a specific exposition from the verse; we learn a separate law that commandments do not suspend or terminate the life of a person, rather the other way around, saving a human life suspends the commandments.
On the other hand, in regards to Shabbos, the explanation of “live by them and not”(according to the Rambam) – not that we learn a separate and overwriting law (that saving a human life suspends Shabbos) rather the ‘and not to die through them” is a continuation to explaining the verse; the rules of the Torah were said only when one “live by them”, but in the case that in causes “die through them” – the prohibition never existed to begin with.
4) According to the above, it would seem possible that we can also explain the language used by Rashi (in the Talmud, Yoma 82,A), where he brings the exposition of “live by them”- that saving a human life suspends all commandments, quote: “the reason for this, for the souls of the Jews are loved by G-D, more than the commandments, G-D said: the commandments shall be nullified so they shall live”, but when it comes to the exposition “live by them” regarding Shabbos((that saving a human life suspends Shabbos, even when there is doubt) the language used by Rashi :”That a man act in accordance with the commandments so that he shall certainly live, and not acting in a manner that will lead to his life being in doubt, hence we desecrate in a situation of doubt”
Meaning, that by all commandments we say, that because of the adoration for the Jews is “commandments shall be nullified so they shall live” in contrast regarding Shabbos, it is the a nullification of the commandments, rather a detail in the act of the commandment – the act is said only when “he shall certainly live, and not act in way that will lead to his life being in doubt”
5) The above explanation is not completely sufficient.
The Rambam says in the laws of Shabbos (as stated above) “This teaches that the judgments of the Torah do not etc.” meaning, that he is talking about commandments in general, like a simple reading the verse “which a man shall do them and live by them” – then why the he not say this statement in the laws of Yesodey HaTorah regarding all commandments?
It therefore follows, that although ((“This teaches”) is said regarding all “judgments of the Torah”, nevertheless it is uniquely apparent regarding Shabbos.
Therefore the Rambam brings it only in the laws of Shabbos, and he also adds an opposite clause: Concerning those non-believers who say that [administering such treatment] constitutes a violation of the Sabbath and is forbidden”.
6) We will understand better by first introducing why this exposition of “"which a man will perform and live by them." [They were given so that] one may live by them and not die because of them.” the Rambam does not bring it regarding the general principle “that a matter of human life suspends the Shabbos”, rather he brings it in relation to the concept that “It is forbidden to hesitate before transgressing the Sabbath [laws] on behalf of a person who is dangerously ill”. For it seems that in the Talmud, this exposition is said in relation to the general concept that human life supersedes Shabbos ((even in a case of doubt)?
Commentators explain that the source for the above law ((It is forbidden to hesitate), is from a second Talmudic passagex:” A person who [administers treatment] promptly is praiseworthy, and one who raises questions is considered as if he shed blood.” The Rambam does not use this precise language ((or something similar to it), like the way it is paraphrased in the Shulchan Aruch ((code of laws).
Rather he uses the language of prohibition “It is forbidden to hesitate etc.”, which needs an explanation: why does the Rambam change the language of the Talmud?
7) We may say, that with changing the language, the Rambam means to elucidate the theoretical boundary of the law that “saving a human life supersedes Shabbos:: the term “One who is asked is disgraced, one who questions is spilling blood” or “one who acts promptly is praised” only bring out, that this is a unique only from the perspective of the commandment of saving human life: This is in contrast to the language((that the Rambam changes) “It is forbidden to hesitate is the transgressingof the Sabbath [laws]for the sick” he tried to bring out that this is a prohibition (also) from the perspective of the Shabbos laws. This point, the Rambam brings the adage “He shall live by them” but he shall not die because of them” – because from it we learn this idea.
The explanation on this; in addition to the exposition of “He shall live by them” (which has no refutation) as mentioned above – there are additional expositions in the Talmud, and some – that are brought down, also regarding Halacha – from “And the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath. The Torah said: Profane for his sake one Sabbath, so that he may keep many Sabbaths” ((Yoma 85, B-).
We can see the difference between these two expositions:
[ In addition to A) the exposition of “And the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, The Torah said: Profane for his sake one Sabbath, so that he may keep many Sabbaths” is a specific law regarding Shabbos, in contrast from the paradigm of “He shall live by them” which (also, as stated above) is said regarding all commandments B-) According to the exposition of “And the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath” it follows, that the reason applies to Shabbos alone – “so that he may keep many Sabbaths” (and in the language of Rashi” in order to fulfill other Shabbosim, for he will be securing this Shabbos, by guarding the many later Shabbosim) in contrast from the angle of “He shall live by them”, it is not because the Yid will be fulfilling the commandments, rather because it is saving a Jewish life]
There is additionally a difference in the theoretical understanding of the “desecration”: from the angle of “Profane for his sake one Sabbath, so that he may keep many Sabbaths” – with the addition of the Ohr Ha’chayim who says” it comes to teach you, that this is not a desecration, on the contrary, this is called guarding the Shabbos”((this that it is “called guarding the Shabbos” is due to the fact that by desecrating it, is because of the commandment of Shabbos, “guard many Sabbaths”),
So the “action” of this Shabbos – an action of desecrating the Shabbos, is only such a desecration in which one is obligated from the angle of the commandment of Shabbos in principal – “many Sabbaths
In contrast from the perspective of ”He shall live by them” but he shall not die because of them” is A) it is talking about the completion of commandments in general B-) the exposition is ((not in connection to the act of desecration, rather) in connection of completing commandments – this is a detail in the act of the commandment, and in our case – the completion of the commandment to guard the Shabbos.
Which means, the desecration of the Shabbos in the situation that where lives are endangered, is not only that it is not a desecration, rather the action is called guarding the Shabbos, the actual motion of desecration due to saving a human life – it at its core the concept of guarding the Sabbath.
8)  The explanation is as follows:
Regarding Shabbos, the Torah saysxi:”'Only keep My Sabbaths! For it is a sign between Me and you for your generations, to know that I, the Lord, make you holy”, and Rashi translates: “It is a sign of distinction between us that I have chosen you, by granting you as an inheritance My day of rest for [your] rest.”
Because the essence of the commandment of resting on Shabbos is “For it is a sign between Me and you” – I have chosen them”, therefore when a Jew stands in a situation of endangering lives, there is missing the true nature of Shabbos, and therefore, when we desecrate the Shabbos due to saving a human live, not only are we fulfilling the commandment of saving a life, but we are additionally fulfilling ((a central point) in guarding the Shabbos – the sign between Me and you.
The “sign” is not only through the one who was rescued – from the fact that we saved a Jewish life ((by which he becomes a sign of Shabbos) even more so – the very essence of the act of desecration, brings out the sign “between Me and you”, when we save a Jewish should which stands in peril on Shabbos, is through this that we desecrated the Shabbos to save him, we fulfill, we strengthen the sign between Me and you – that G-D almighty chooses the Jewish nation, Shabbos demands, that we must to this action (of desecrating the Shabbos) for it, because of the “it is a sign”(with “ you” – a soul of a Jew)
This idea we learn from He shall live by them” but he shall not die because of them” which is speaking about commandments in general – because the above stated concept in truth applies to all commandments, and not only in the language of the Chinuch “ Because the reasoning behind accomplishing the commandments, is the person, therefore by upholding man, we upholds everything” ((and therefore “ we suspend all laws to save lives, one who is zealous to desecrate the Shabbos is praised”) but also from the reasoning of the Chinuch itself – because the reason of all commandments “is the person”, and they are all in essence a sign between G-D and the Jewish nation, that G-D choose them;
This is singled out and explained only – as a unique principle specific of a commandment – it is only stated by the commandment of Shabbos, and therefore the exposition of “he shall live by them” also and unique exposition by Shabbos - the danger to human life suspends the laws of Shabbos.
9) Accordingly, it is also understood what the Rambam says (regarding the unique exposition in relation to Shabbos, as stated above) “It is forbidden to hesitate before transgressing the Sabbath [laws] on behalf of a person who is dangerously ill, as [reflected in the interpretation in the phrase of Leviticus 18:5,] "which a person shall perform to live through them," as "['to live through them'] and not to die through them." And learns from that to apply to all judgments of Torah - “This teaches that the judgments of the Torah do not [bring] vengeance to the world, but rather bring mercy, kindness, and peace to the world“
By this he means to apply it to all judgments of the Torah, that not only the explanation that in a situation that is engendering lives, the commandments are not applicable that we are then not obligated, rather the explanation is – that the judgments of the Torah itself says, that is a situation that is engendering lives, the judgment of the Torah commands you to save the life ((because all laws of Torah in general are “mercy, kindness, and peace to the world)
The Rambam only says this regarding Shabbos, and we learn the principle from Shabbos, because this is emphasized and revealed by Shabbos, as explained above.
According to what we said, we can also solve the difficulties on the commentators, for it would seem that the verse “He shall Live by them” but he shall not die because of them” is talking about the person himself, so it would follow logically that from here we learn that (regarding all commandments) “he should violate the commandment rather than be killed” and along those lines that a dangerously ill person, may himself desecrate the Shabbos that is all understood. From where do we know that this is aid regarding other Jews, that they are commanded to desecrate Shabbos in order to save a ((other) Jew?
According the above, it is understood. With the fundamental act of rescuing a Jew, to whichever Jew it is done – with this he is completing the sign between G-D and the Jewish nation.
10) According to everything we have stated, we can also explain the connection to why this is the Shabbos before Passover, the Great Shabbos ((for in this year ((1984) falls on the calendar of this week’s Torah portion – Parshas Achrei) :
The reason this Shabbos is called the “great Shabbos”, as like the First Lubavitch Rebbe brings in his Shulchan Aruch, and says: “The Shabbos before Passover we call “the great Shabbos” because there accrued a great miracle, for at the time of the Passover sacrifice in Egypt, they prepared the lamb on the tenth of the month {Nissan}…and that day was Shabbos…and when the Jews prepared their sacrifices that day, the first-born of Egypt gathered next to the Jews, and asked them why they are preparing a sacrifice, so they told them: it is a sacrifice of Passover for G-D, for he will kill all the first-born of Egypt. The first-born of Egypt went to their fathers and Pharaoh, to demand that they free the Israelites, but {Pharaoh and the elders} did not want to, so the first-born Egyptians began a military campaign against the leaders of Egypt, and killed many of them… they established the Shabbos, due to this miracle, as a reminder to later generations, and they called it “the great Shabbos”
Which means, the act of doing labor ((in connection with “they prepared the lamb on the tenth of the month {Nissan}…and that day was Shabbos”) of Jews on that Shabbos, which brought the message to the first-born Egyptians of “it is a sacrifice of Passover for G-D, for he will kill all the first-born of Egypt” – this itself accomplished, that not only did they not harm the Jews, but even more, the first-born of Egypt went and demanded that they “free the Israelites” ,until – the point that they “killed many of them” of “their fathers”.
For we may say, that ((additionally) is the reason we call this Shabbos “the great Shabbos”- it was an event of greatness in the concept of Shabbos: due to the rescuing ((in the manner of a miracle) of Jews, there is an added greatness in Shabbos, which is a sign “between me and you” – that G-D chose them.
End.

 

Links:

 Date Delivered:   Reviewer:       
Date Modified:    Date Reviewed:  
Contributor: