English translation — אחרי ג

A.

In connection with the matter of saving a life, it stands in the Gemara¹

: "From where [do we derive] that saving a life overrides Shabbos",

and the Gemara brings several expositions,

and concludes²

that the exposition upon which there is no refutation is — from the verse

(which is in our parshah³)

"And you shall keep My statutes and My judgments which a man shall do and live by them" — "and live by them and not die by them".

It is seemingly perplexing⁴

<span>: It is a principle in the entire Torah that "there is</span>⁵

<span><span> nothing that stands before saving a life except for idolatry, forbidden relations, and murder."</span></span>

Then why is there need for a special exposition from "and live by them" that saving a life overrides Shabbos?

Further: Regarding the law of "he should transgress and not be killed"&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;

it is brought in many places&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

that it is derived&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

from the same verse "and live by them and not die by them".

It is understood from this,

that that which the Gemara brings the derivation specifically regarding Shabbos,

is not the same matter

(which is stated in several places)

but a separate matter&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;,

which pertains specifically to Shabbos — it is not understood:

(a)

What is the precise meaning and special matter of "and live by them" regarding Shabbos?

(b)

And primarily: The verse "and you shall guard etc. and live by them" speaks indeed about mitzvos in general and not about Shabbos specifically?

Similarly one must understand in the Rambam,

who also brings the derivation twice: earlier in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;

he says: How so? When an idolater stands and forces a Jew to transgress any of the mitzvos stated in the Torah or kill him, he should transgress and not be killed, as it is said regarding the mitzvos "which a man shall do and live by them",

"and live by them and not die by them",

and if he dies and did not transgress, behold this one is liable for his life: and afterwards in Hilchos Shabbos&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;

he says again: And it is forbidden to delay in desecrating Shabbos for a dangerously ill person, as it is said "which a man shall do and live by them and not die by them"&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;.

Is not understandable

(as above in the Gemara),

Why does he need to bring the same teaching twice?

B.

At first glance one must say: In Hilchos Shabbos

the Rambam adds "Behold you have learned that the judgments of the Torah are not vengeance in the world but mercy and kindness and peace in the world."

But in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah — regarding all

(other)

commandments,

he does not say this

So from this it is understandable,

that this is relevant,

pertains only regarding that pikuach nefesh overrides Shabbos.

And as the Rambam continues regarding Shabbos: "And these"

the heretics

who say that this is desecration of Shabbos and it is forbidden to them, Scripture says

"And also"

"I gave them"

statutes that are not good and judgments by which they shall not live.

What can be explained about this: That which regarding all the commandments is "there is nothing that stands before danger to life" and "one should transgress and not be killed" — is a special law in itself,

It is not the explanation that in a place of danger to life there is no obligation to fulfill the commandment — the obligation remains,

it is only that danger to life pushes aside the obligation;

But regarding Shabbat the Rambam says²⁰

"Shabbat regarding a dangerously ill person is like a weekday for all things that he needs,"

d.

d.

e.

e.

Not that danger to life pushes aside the prohibition of work on Shabbat,

rather it makes Shabbat "like a weekday",

regarding a dangerously ill person, from the outset there is no

(regarding the "things that he needs")

Shabbat²¹.

explains the opinion of the Rambam that what is said regarding Shabbat "and whatever can be changed, we change" regarding the labor that is done for the patient — was not said regarding a dangerously ill patient,

because regarding a dangerously ill patient "he is considered like a weekday person for all matters"&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;,

and one "desecrates [Shabbat] for all his needs even if there is no danger in refraining from the thing they do for him"&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;].

And therefore the Rambam says again

(regarding Shabbat)

the teaching "and you shall live by them and not die by them",

and also adds "you have learned that the laws of the Torah are not vengeance in the world but mercy and kindness and peace in the world" to say,

that regarding danger to life the laws of the Torah

(regarding Shabbat prohibitions)

were from the outset not said

(not like other prohibitions which are set aside).

And therefore the Rambam continues "And these heretics who say that this is a desecration of Shabbat and forbidden to them, Scripture says ..

statutes that are not good etc.".

With this he emphasizes that the statutes

(desecration of Shabbat)

become not good.

In a different style: regarding all the other commandments, this is in the category of being pushed aside,

saving a life overrides the prohibition,

but regarding Shabbat it is — permitted²⁵

: the prohibition was initially not stated²⁶

regarding a dangerously ill patient,

"he is considered like a healthy person"²⁷.

Gimmel.

And seemingly one can say that this is also the reason for the variations in language in the Rambam:

In the laws of Yesodei HaTorah regarding all the commandments, he brings the teaching "that it is said regarding the commandments which a man shall do and live by them

(and he repeats)

and live by them and not die by them"; but in the laws of Shabbos he says "which a man shall do and live by them and not die by them" and he does not repeat the words "and live by them"²⁸.

And the explanation:

Among all the commandments, this is a unique lesson from the verse,

one learns from the verse a specific law,

that commandments are not set aside for the life of a Jew,

but on the contrary,

saving a life sets aside the commandments;

However, regarding Shabbat, the explanation of "and live by them and not..."

(according to the Rambam)

— is not that one learns a specific law

(saving a life sets aside Shabbat),

rather, the "and not die by them" is the continuation of the explanation of the verse: the laws of the Torah were said only when "and live by them",

but if it can bring about "die by them" — then the prohibition from the outset does not exist.

Based on the above,

one could seemingly also explain Rashi's wording

(in the Talmud)

where he brings the teaching from "and live by them" — that saving a life overrides all commandments,

he says the wording²⁹

"the reason of the matter because the lives of Israel are dear before the Omnipresent more than the commandments, the Holy One, blessed be He, said: let the commandment be nullified and let this one live"; but regarding the teaching from "and live by them" concerning Shabbat

(that saving a life overrides Shabbat even in a case of doubt)³⁰

is Rashi's wording³¹

: "that a person performs the commandments that he may live by them certainly and not that by their performance he come to a case of doubtful death,

hence they desecrate [Shabbat] for a doubt."

D.

D.

Regarding all the commandments one says that from the dearness of Jews "let the commandment be nullified and let this one live"; but regarding Shabbat this is not a nullification of the commandment,

rather a detail in the performance of the commandments — the performance was stated "that he may live by them certainly and not that by their performance he come to a case of doubtful death"³².

E.

The above explanation is, however, not entirely sufficient³³

The Rambam says in Hilchos Shabbos

(as above)

"Behold you have learned that the judgments of the Torah are not etc."

D.

E.

E.

He speaks about commandments in general,

and as the plain meaning of the verse "which a man shall do and live by them" — why does he not say this in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah regarding all the commandments?

It follows from this,

that although the study

("you have learned")

is regarding all "laws of the Torah",

this is primarily emphasized regarding Shabbat,

and therefore the Rambam says this only in Hilchot Shabbat,

and there he also adds the negation "and these are the heretics who say that this is a desecration of Shabbat and it is forbidden to them etc.",

as follows.

6.

This will be understood by prefacing what the Rambam brings the study of "and he shall live by them and not die by them" on Shabbat not regarding the general principle that saving a life overrides Shabbat,

but regarding that "it is forbidden to delay in desecrating Shabbat for a dangerously ill patient"³⁴,

And seemingly: In the Gemara this study is regarding the general principle that saving a life overrides Shabbat

(even in a case of doubt)³⁵?

Commentators³⁶

say that the source of this aforementioned law

(that it is forbidden to delay)

in the Rambam is from a different Gemara³⁷

: The zealous one is praiseworthy and the one who asks is a shedder of blood³⁸

But the Rambam does not say the wording

(or similar to this)

as it is brought in the Shulchan Aruch³⁹

(A language regarding this — "And one who hastens to save a life, behold he is praiseworthy" — says the Rambam first in a later halacha⁴⁰),

Only in the language of prohibition,

"It is forbidden to delay etc."

And it requires explanation: Why does the Rambam change from the language of the Gemara?

7.

And it can be said,

So with this change the Rambam means to bring out the definition in pikuach nefesh pushes aside Shabbos: the wording "the one who is asked is disgraceful and the one who asks is a shedder of blood" that he "the one who is zealous is praiseworthy" — only brings out,

That this is a virtue from the aspect of the matter and commandment of pikuach nefesh; but the wording

(as the Rambam changes)

"It is forbidden to delay in desecrating Shabbos for a sick person" brings out that this is a prohibition

(also)

from the aspect of the laws of Shabbos.

And on this the Rambam brings "which a man shall do and live by them and not die by them" — because from this it is learned.

And the explanation in this: In addition to the learning from "and live by them"

(which has no refutation)

as above — there are additional teachings in the Gemara⁴¹,

and from them⁴²

— which is brought⁴³

also to halacha⁴⁴

— from "and the children of Israel shall keep the Shabbos"*⁴⁴,

The Torah said: Desecrate on his behalf one Shabbos so that he may keep many Shabbosos.

And from the practical differences between the two studies

The study of "Veshamru ..

Chalal alav Shabbos achas kedei sheyishmor Shabbasos harbeh",

is a specific law regarding Shabbos,

but "Vechai bahem" is

(also,

as above)

relevant to all mitzvos.

b)

According to the study of Veshamru it follows,

that the reason is because of Shabbos itself — "kedei sheyishmor Shabbasos harbeh"

(and in the language of Rashi⁴⁵

: in order to do other Shabbasos they will be careful with this Shabbos in the fulfillment of keeping many Shabbasos)⁴⁶

but according to Vechai bahem this is not because of the fulfillment of mitzvos of the Jew,

rather because of the saving of a life of Israel*⁴⁶]

There is also a difference in this definition of desecration: from the aspect of "he desecrated one Shabbat so that he may observe many Shabbatot" — including as the Ohr HaChaim says

says "and to teach you that this is not desecration; on the contrary, it is called 'observing Shabbat'"

(But that which it is "called 'observing Shabbat'" is because the desecration is for the sake of the mitzvah of Shabbat,

observing many Shabbatot),

the "action" on this Shabbat — an act of desecrating Shabbat,

only such a desecration in which one is obligated from the aspect of the mitzvah of Shabbat in general

— "many Shabbatot"

But not from the aspect of "and he shall live by them and not die by them" is: a)

He speaks about the fulfillment of the commandments in general,

b)

the lesson is

(not regarding the act of desecration,

but)

regarding the fulfillment of the commandments — this is a detail in the fulfillment of the commandments,

and in our case — the fulfillment of the commandment of observing Shabbat.

d.

e.

Desecration of Shabbat in a life-threatening situation,

is not only that this is not desecration of Shabbat,

but the action is called observing Shabbat,

the very act of desecration for the sake of life-threatening danger — its essence is observing⁵⁰

Shabbat⁵¹.

8.

The explanation in this:

When Shabbos stands⁵²

את שבתותי תשמרו כי אות הוא ביני וביניכם לדורותיכם לדעת כי אני ה׳ מקדשכם,

Rashi translates⁵²

"A great sign is between us that I have chosen you in that I have given you My day of rest for rest"⁵³.

And since the content of the mitzvah of resting on Shabbat is “It is a sign between Me and you — that I have chosen you”,

so when a Jew is in a situation of danger to life,

there is lacking in the very essence of the matter of Shabbat,

and consequently,

when one desecrates Shabbat due to danger to life,

it is not only that one fulfills a mitzvah of danger to life,

but one thereby fulfills

(an essential aspect of)

observing Shabbat — the “It is a sign between Me and you”.

The “sign” is not only through the action — by which one saved a Jewish soul

(through whom the reality of the sign of Shabbat is brought about),

but moreover — the very act of desecration brings out the sign “between Me and you”: when one saves a Jewish soul who is in danger on Shabbat,

then through this desecration of Shabbat for his rescue one fulfills,

one strengthens the sign between Me and you — that the Almighty has chosen the Jews.

Shabbat means,

that one must do the action

(of desecrating Shabbat)

for its sake,

for the sake of “It is a sign”

(with “and between you” — the soul of a Jew).

And this concept is learned from "which a person shall do and live by them and not die by them" which speaks about mitzvos in general — because the aforementioned concept is truly in all mitzvos.

And not only according to the language of the Chinuch⁵⁴

"because the cause of the doing of the mitzvah is the person and the existence of the cause is the existence of all"

(therefore "we push aside everything for the sake of saving lives and whoever is zealous to desecrate Shabbat is praiseworthy"⁵⁵),

but also according to the reason of the Chinuch itself — because all mitzvos their cause is "the person" and all of them are in their content a sign between the Almighty and Jews,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, chose them;

Specifically and explicitly however,

as a unique content of the mitzvah — this stands by Shabbat specifically.

And therefore also the lesson from "and live by them",

a unique lesson in Shabbat — danger to life pushes aside Shabbat.

9.

Based on this it is also understood what the Rambam says

(regarding the aforementioned special study concerning Shabbos)

"And it is forbidden to delay in desecrating Shabbos for a dangerously ill person, as it is said, 'which a man shall do and live by them' and not die by them,"

and learns from this regarding all the laws of the Torah — "behold you have learned that the laws of the Torah are not vengeance in the world but mercy and kindness and peace in the world":

With this he means to learn also regarding all the laws of the Torah,

that the explanation is not that in a place of danger the commandments were not given,

that one is then not obligated in them,

rather the explanation is — that the "laws of the Torah"⁵⁶

themselves say,

that in a place of danger the law of the Torah is to save the life

(because all the laws of the Torah in general are "mercy and kindness and peace in the world"⁵⁷).

But the Rambam says it regarding Shabbos and we learn it from Shabbos,

because it is revealed and emphasized on Shabbos,

as above.

And according to the above, the question of the commentators⁵⁸ will also be answered,

for apparently: the verse "which a man shall do and live by them" speaks about the man himself.

Now, it is understandable that what we learn from it, that

(regarding all the commandments)

"one should transgress and not be killed",

and likewise that a dangerously ill person may himself desecrate Shabbos,

is understood; but from where do we know that this also applies regarding other Jews,

that they are obligated to desecrate Shabbos in order to save a

(another)

Jew⁵⁹?

And according to the above it is understood: with the very rescue of the Jew,

whatever Jew does it — he thereby fulfills the sign between the Almighty and Jews.

<span>Yud.</span>

According to all the above, one can also explain the connection of this to Shabbat before Pesach,

Shabbat HaGadol

(which in this year

(Tashdad-Mem)

falls on Shabbat of our parshah — Parshas Acharei)

The reason that Shabbos is called "Shabbos HaGadol" brings the Alter Rebbe in Shulchan Aruch

And this is his language: The Shabbos before Pesach is called Shabbos HaGadol because a great miracle occurred on it, that the Pesach of Egypt was taken on the tenth of the month...

And that day was Shabbos...

And when Yisrael took their Pesach-offerings on that Shabbos, the firstborn of Egypt gathered by Yisrael and asked them why they are doing this; they said to them: "It is a Pesach-offering to Hashem, that He will kill the firstborn of Egypt." Their firstborn went to their fathers and to Pharaoh to request that they send Yisrael out, but they did not want to, and the firstborn made war with them and killed many of them...

And they established this miracle as a remembrance for generations on Shabbos and called it Shabbos HaGadol.

4.

5.

The performance of labors

(In connection with "its taking on the tenth of the month" which was on Shabbos)

of Jews on that Shabbos,

which brought their statement to the firstborn of Egypt "It is a Pesach-offering to Hashem, that He will kill the firstborn of Egypt" — this very thing accomplished,

that not only were the Jews not touched,

but moreover: the firstborn of Egypt went to demand "that they send Yisrael out,"

until — that "they killed many of them,"

of "their fathers."

And one can say that

(also)

therefore Shabbat is called "Shabbat HaGadol" — here there was a matter of greatness in Shabbat: from the aspect of the rescue

(and in a manner of miracle)

of Jews,

there becomes a greatness in Shabbat,

which is a sign "between Me and you" — that the Almighty has in them

(Jews)

chosen.

(From the sicha of parshas Metzora and parshas Kedoshim 5741)