[KollelH blog] Noach

Are There Times One May Kill Himself?

Toward the end of this week's parshah Rashi quotes a Medrash that relates the familiar episode of when Avraham Avinu was thrown into a furnace. Rashi recounts that Avraham's father, Terach, had reported to Nimrod that his son had broken all of his idols. Avraham was then thrown into a fire and was saved. The wording of the Medrash, however, is that Avraham had gone into the fire by himself (kesheyarad Avraham letoch kivshan ha'eish – when Avraham went into the fir and in another place it says that Nimrod decreed that he should leireid lekivshan ha'eish – go down into the fire.)

Several Acharonim were bothered by this event. First, they ask how Avraham could have thrown himself into a fire. Although avodah zarah is one of the three aveiros for which one must sacrifice his or her life instead of transgressing – in addition, when one is forced to perform any aveirah in public before 10 or more people, the person's life must be given up instead of committing a transgression – there is nevertheless a dispute among the Rishonim as to whether one may actively kill himself or only allow himself to be killed. Second, the Acharonim ask that since bnei Noach are not commanded in Kiddush Hashem, if a ben Noach is forced to transgress he should do so and not give up his life.

Earlier in the parshah the Torah commanded Noach that although animals may now be killed humans may not be killed. The pasuk says: "v'ach es dimchem lenafshoseichem edrosh – but the blood of your souls I will seek." Rashi brings the drasha that this is the source in the Torah that one may not kill oneself. The Das Zekeinim Miba'alei Tosafos quote an ambiguous Medrash and offer two interpretations of that Medrash that differ on this point. The Medrash makes a drasha that teaches us whether we should or should not be like Chananya Mishael and Azarya, and whether Shaul Hamelech – who killed himself before he would have been captured – acted correctly, for as the pasuk here says: ach, to exclude. One opinion says that the Medrash teaches us that one may kill oneself or others to prevent avodah zarah. The other opinion says that one may only allow himself to be killed; one may never kill to prevent avodah zarah.

Tosafos continues by saying that in his time there was a decree against the Jews (one of the crusades), and that one rabbi was slaughtering little children in an effort to prevent them from growing up in the church. Another rabbi, angered with this practice, called the first rabbi a murderer and said that if he is correct, the first rabbi will die a strange death. Indeed, the first rabbi was captured and given a strange death. In short order, the decree was abolished.

The Gemara in Avodah Zarah 18a says that when Rabbi Chanina ben Tiradyon was being killed, his students asked him to open his mouth so he would die faster. He responded that he could not do this since that would be considered as if he was killing himself. The Ritvah, on that Gemara and quoting the same Medrash, says that Rabbeinu Tam ruled that one is permitted to take his own life under such circumstances.

Returning to the original question, it is possible that Avraham did not go into the fire himself but rather allowed himself to be thrown into the fire – as seems to be the case from Rashi's wording. Thus, in that event, the first question is not applicable. But if we understand the events as the Medrash implies, we must then explain the opinion that one may never kill oneself (in this case, that Avraham went into the fire on his own). Additionally, even if we understand that he was thrown into the fire we must still explain that if he had the status of a ben Noach, he should have transgressed and not allowed himself to be killed.

The Maharimt suggests that since Avraham Avinu, as a ben Noach, should have transgressed and not be killed, he acted incorrectly by allowing himself to be killed. He says that it is for this reason that the Medrash says that Avraham was saved in the zechus of Yaakov Avinu.

The sefer, Prashas Derachim, says that according to the Rishonim – who opine that Avraham had the status of a Yisrael – Avraham acted correctly by not transgressing.

The Nimukei Yosef (Sanhedrin 18a) says that although one may not give up his life for other mitzvos (aside from not practicing avodah zarah, murder, and arayos), if an adam gadol – a chassid and yirei shamayim – sees that the generation is parutz in a certain area he may give up his life for that particular cause. in order that his generation will learn from him.

Perhaps we can apply this to Avraham Avinu who, whether he had the status of a ben Noach and therefore should not have allowed himself to be killed for this aveirah or if he had the status of a Yisrael and attempted to kill himself, saw that the entire world was lacking in any knowledge of Hashem and therefore felt the need to make a statement in order to teach the world that there is a God. Hence he was permitted to go into the fire to pronounce to the world that there is a God.


--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 10/19/2012 01:09:00 PM

[KollelH blog] Yom Kippor

Maftir Yonah and the Parshah of Arayos

There is a machlokes between the Mechaber and the Ramah concerning the berachos recited on the Yom Kippur haftarah by Minchah. The Mechaber says (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 622:2) that we take the Torah out and read the parshah of arayos and then read Maftir Yonah. He says that we recite the berachos of the haftarah before and after the haftarah. If Yom Kippur falls out on Shabbos, we mention Shabbos in the berachos. The Ramah argues that we do not recite the berachah of "al haTorah v'al ha'avodah" by Minchah.

The Vilna Gaon explains that this machlokes is based on a fundamental difference of opinion as to the nature of why we read the Torah and haftarah at Minchah on Yom Kippur. The Mechaber holds that the reason why we read a the Torah and haftarah at Minchah on Yom Kippur is because it is part of the service of Yom Kippur. This is similar to the fact that we read from the Torah on Shabbos by Minchah; . Therefore the Mechaber rules that the berachah of "al haTorah…" is recited, like it is recited on Shabbos. And if Yom Kippur falls out on Shabbos, we mention Shabbos in the berachah.

The Ramah's view is that the Torah reading at Minchah on Yom Kippur is unrelated to the kedushah of Yom Kippur; rather, we read the Torah and the haftarah because Yom Kippur is a fast day, and on all fast days we read the Torah and haftarah at Minchah. Even though on a general fast day the reading of the Torah is from the parshah of "Vayechal Moshe…" the specific reading may be changed. On a regular fast day we do not recite the berachah of "al haTorah"; therefore the Ramah rules that we should not recite that berachah on Yom Kippur.

A halachic ramification should result from this machlokes. Take this scenario, for example: A sick man who must eat on Yom Kippur, may he receive an aliyah by Minchah on Yom Kippur? If the essence of why we read the Torah by Minchah on Yom Kippur results from the kedushah of Yom Kippur, this sick man may receive an aliyah since he has not violated the kedushah of the day. But if the reason why we read the Torah is because Yom Kippur is a fast day and on fast days we read the Torah by Minchah, then he would not be able to receive an aliyah, as he is not currently fasting. As the Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 566:6 rules: one who is not fasting may not receive an aliyah on a fast day.

Rabbi Akiva Eiger, in Teshuvos 24, rules that one who must eat for medical reasons may receive an aliyah at Shacharis on Yom Kippur. This is because the Torah reading at Shacharis definitely stems from the kedushas hayom. However, he says that he is unsure if he may receive one at Minchah, for perhaps that Torah reading results from the fact that it is a fast day.

Based on the Vilna Gaon's explanation, this matter should depend on the machlokes between the Ramah and the Mechaber. According to the Mechaber one should be able to receive an aliyah even if he is not fasting. According to the Ramah he should not be able to receive an aliyah.

The difference between whether the Torah reading results from the kedushas hayom or if it results from the fact that it is a fast day is a fundamental difference in the essence of the Torah reading. If it results from the kedushas hayom, it is a regular Torah reading that is essentially public study of Torah. If we read the Torah because it is a fast day, then the purpose of the reading is essentially to rebuke the congregation. The main rebuke is actually found in the haftarah, except that we cannot read a haftarah only without reading from the actual Torah first. This is the understanding behind the opinion in Megillah 22b that says that only one aliyah is required on a fast day, since the main purpose is to reach the rebuke found in the haftarah.

There are two different sources for why we read the parshah of the arayos at Minchah on Yom Kippur. Rashi, in Megillah 31a, says that it is because one who has committed the sins of arayos should do teshuvah. Similarly Tosafos there says that we read that parshah because women dress nicely on Yom Tov and thus we want to remind everyone of the possible aveiros about which they should be cautious.

Tosafos there also quotes a medrash that says that the reason that we read the parshah of the arayos is to remind Hashem that just as we are commanded not to commit any aveirah with arayos, so too Hashem should not be megaleh ervasom beavonesem (commit an act of arayos with Bnei Yisrael's sins).

The sefer, Harirai Kedem, suggests that these two different reasons regarding the reading of the parshah of arayos could be dependent on the machlokes mentioned above. According to the Mechaber the reading of the Torah at Minchah on Yom Kippur results from the kedushas hayom; therefore we read a portion that relates to the kedushas hayom (namely, as the medrash explained, that Hashem should not punish us for our sins). According to the Ramah's view that we read the Torah at that time, as we would on any fast day when the essence of the Torah reading is primarily to rebuke the congregation, the portion that we read should be of rebuke (namely, as Rashi and Tosafos explained, to remind people not to do aveiros – and to do teshuvah).


--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 9/21/2012 10:12:00 AM

[KollelH blog] 7/25/2012 12:19:00 PM

The Aveilus Of Tisha B'Av Week

One may not perform several actions during the week in which Tisha B'Av falls. This is referred to as shavua she'chal bo. For example, one may not take a haircut or wash his clothing (Ashkenazi Jews are forbidden in these actions prior to the week of Tisha B'Av in accordance with the ruling of the Ramah). The Mechaber (Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 551: 4) writes that in a year when Tisha B'Av falls on Shabbos and is pushed off to Sunday (as it does this year) there is a machlokes as to whether there are any prohibitions during the week before Tisha B'Av. The Mechaber seemingly sides with the view that there are no halachos of shavua she'chal bo in such circumstances.

Many Achronim explain that the dispute is based on the understanding behind the establishment of the fast of Tisha B'Av. The Gemara in Ta'anis 29a says that the Beis HaMikdash was lit close to the end of the ninth day of Av and continued burning throughout the tenth day of Av. Reb Yochanan said, "Had I been in the generation when Tisha B'Av was established, I would have established it on the tenth day of the month since the majority of the Beis HaMikdash burnt on that day." The Gemara says that the Rabbanan who established the fast on the ninth day of the month did so because they felt that it was better to establish the fast day on the day of the troubles' onset.

Based on this, they explain that the first opinion holds that there is no shavua she'chal bo in a year when Tisha B'Av falls on Shabbos and is pushed off to Sunday because the Rabbanan only argued that, when possible, the fast should be established at the onset of the troubles. However, when it is not possible to fast on the ninth day of Av (i.e., when it falls out on Shabbos), they would agree with Reb Yochanan's view that the fast should take place when the majority of the Beis HaMikdash burnt – namely on the tenth day of Av. Based on this, the week that precedes Tisha B'Av is not the week when the fast falls out, since in a year like this year we fast on the tenth day of the month (Sunday) – which is the beginning of the following week.

The other opinion holds that the halachos of shavua she'chal bo do apply to the week prior to Tisha B'Av, even when it falls on Shabbos, because they opine that the Rabbanan hold that the fast should always be on the ninth day – even when one cannot fast on that day. The reason why we fast on Sunday is merely to make up for not being able to fast on Shabbos. However, the fast day is primarily on the ninth day. Hence all the halachos of shavua she'chal bo apply, since Tisha B'Av falls out during that week – namely on Shabbos.

This permits us to explain another machlokes, the one between the Mechaber and the Ramah (554:19) regarding whether one must keep aveilus betzina (hidden aveilus, i.e. marital relations) on Tisha B'Av that falls on Shabbos. The Mechaber says that one may have marital relations on the ninth day of Av when it falls out on Shabbos. The reason: The fast was primarily established to be on the tenth day, and the ninth day is not a fast day at all. Therefore, the Mechaber holds that one need not keep any aveilus betzina on the ninth day. But the Ramah argues that this is forbidden and that one must keep aveilus betzina since the Rabbanan established Tisha B'Av to always be on the ninth day of Av – even when one cannot fast.

There is one problem, however, with this suggestion. Why does the Mechaber say that, when Tisha B'Av falls on Shabbos and is pushed off to Sunday, there is a leniency regarding one making a bris milah? In siman 559:9, the Mechaber writes that one who makes a bris milah on a Sunday Tisha B'Av (that really fell on Shabbos) does not have to fast and may wash his body. In contrast, one must fast and may not wash his body if making a bris milah on the regularly scheduled day of Tisha B'Av. If we explain that the Mechaber is of the opinion that when Tisha B'Av falls out on Shabbos and is pushed off to Sunday (making Sunday the actual day of the fast, and thus Tisha B'Av didn't fall in the prior week), permitting one to have marital relations on Shabbos, why is there any leniency or discrepancy regarding the fast on Sunday?

The sefer, Harirai Kedem, suggests a different understanding behind the machlokes. He suggests that the machlokes as to whether aveilus betzina applies on Shabbos Tisha B'Av is dependent on a different point. The Ramah, who says that it applies, holds that Tisha B'Av is in essence always on the ninth day and therefore aveilus betzina applies. The Mechaber agrees to this, but holds that there can only be one day that aveilus of Tisha B'Av is observed. And since we cannot fully observe the aveilus on Shabbos, we observe it only on Sunday.

Both sides of the machlokes regarding whether there are halachos of shavua she'chal bo the week before Tisha B'Av agree that Tisha B'Av is essentially on Shabbos. However, the opinion that holds that there are no halachos of shavua she'chal bo believes that the halachos applying to the week of Tisha B'Av are connected to the aveilus of Tisha B'Av – similar to a prelude to the aveilus of Tisha B'Av. So even though the actual day of the fast is primarily on Shabbos, and since aveilus is not observed on Shabbos, the week that Shabbos falls out also does not have any halachos of aveilus.

For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.

--
Posted By KH to KollelH blog at 7/25/2012 12:19:00 PM