English translation — קדושים ב

Sicha b<pg>120</pg>

A.

On the verse<sup>1</sup>

"You shall not stand by the blood of your fellow" Rashi explains: "to see his death and you are able to save him"

(And afterwards Rashi brings examples of the matter,

as below section b).

At first glance it seems that Rashi's intention here is to explain the words "

(You shall not stand upon)

the blood of your fellow" — that is "his death",

And according to this "You shall not stand upon the blood of your fellow" means,

that it is forbidden to stand and "to look at his death" when one is able to save him.

But according to this it is difficult — what does he inform us?

Behold this is the simple explanation of these words,

as we find in many places in Scripture,

that the "blood" of a person is his soul and his life

(as it is written²

"For the soul of the flesh is in the blood",

"For the blood is the soul"),

And what does Rashi innovate in his explanation that "the blood of your fellow" is "to look at his death"³?

At first glance, one can say,

that the main innovation of Rashi is in the explanation of the word

(“Not”)

you shall stand”

(and not in the explanation of “the blood of your fellow”)

— that its explanation is not standing

(physical)

in its simple sense

[as is understood from the explanation of the Ibn Ezra “that he should not associate with men of blood”,

and this is that “you shall not stand etc.” comes in continuation of what is stated at the beginning of this verse “you shall not go as a talebearer among your people”,

and the verse concludes that “you shall not stand” in the company of talebearers because this will lead to “the blood of your fellow”<sup>4</sup>]

— but rather to stand and delay<sup>5</sup>

from endeavoring in the rescue of his fellow

(standing and seeing his death)

; therefore Rashi specifies “to see his death”,

for this is the main innovation here,

that “you shall not stand” means that he stands and sees without doing anything.

But still the continuation of Rashi’s language is not understood “and you are able to save him” — what does this come to teach us?

Is it not obvious that it speaks of when he is able to save him — for would it enter your mind that if he is unable to save him and sees his death he transgresses this prohibition?

!

And if Rashi's intention is to emphasize the act of rescue that is required by this prohibition

(that it is forbidden to stand and watch his death, but rather one is obligated to rescue him)

— he should have said "

(to watch his death)

but rather you are obligated to rescue him"⁶.

And the wonder is great: The source of Rashi is in the Torat Kohanim on the verse and in the Gemara Sanhedrin⁷,

and in both of them the language is "obligated

(you)

to rescue him",

while Rashi changes and writes "you can rescue him"⁸

!<pg>121</pg>

2.

Afterwards Rashi continues: "Such as one drowning in a river and wild animals or bandits coming upon him."

And it must be understood: A situation of mortal danger is simple, and why is it necessary to bring examples for this?

And also if you say that it is necessary to bring examples — why did he specifically choose these examples⁹?

And even though these examples are brought in the Gemara and Toras Kohanim — nevertheless, in addition to the main point that Rashi's commentary on the Torah is

(as Rashi himself says¹⁰)

to explain the plain meaning of the verse

(and not to copy the language of the Sages),

nevertheless — in our case Rashi changes from the language of the Sages:

In the Gemara and Toras Kohanim there are three examples¹¹

— "drowning in a river or a wild animal..

or bandits etc.",

but Rashi changes and writes "drowning in a river and a wild animal or bandits etc.",

meaning that according to Rashi there are not three examples here¹²,

but a combination of two dangerous situations,

that in addition to his drowning in the river,

a wild animal or bandits come upon him.

[And one cannot say that the intention of the "vav" in "and live" is like "or live"

(as we find in several places that a vav serves in the sense of "or"¹³)

— because Rashi himself continues "and live or bandits",

and it is proven that what he said before "and live" means literally — a conjunctive vav¹⁴.

And especially that in the Gemara and Toras Kohanim it says "or",

and Rashi changes to "and live",

then certainly it is more that Rashi's intention is its simple meaning¹⁵].

And it is puzzling in general: why did Rashi give such a complicated example — a combination of three dangerous cases together — as if only in a situation like this did the Torah command "Do not stand by the blood of your neighbor"!

Also, one must be precise:

(a)

Rashi in his commentary&lt;pg&gt;122&lt;/pg&gt;

omits the word "ra'ah"

(in the Torat Kohanim)

and writes "chayah" simply

[And even though also in the Gemara it is not [present],

there, at any rate, it is stated "chayah goreret oto",

which emphasizes that it is speaking of a wild animal],

(b)

Rashi adopted the version of the Gemara,

where the example of "chayah" comes before "listim",

and not as in the Torat Kohanim,

where the example of "listim" comes before "chayah".

3.

And one must say the explanation in this:

The intention of Rashi is not to explain the meaning of the words "Do not stand upon the blood of your fellow" — because it is understood and simple even without Rashi that the intention of the verse is for the saving of "your fellow" from death — but rather he comes to resolve a difficulty in the language of the verses:

Since the intention of the verse is to obligate a person to do everything within his ability to save his fellow — why is this stated in a negative form,

the prohibition of "Do not stand upon the blood of your fellow",

and not in the language of an explicit command regarding the main point

(Arise and do)

— the obligation to save his fellow from death

(as we find regarding commandments stated concerning saving the property of one's fellow,

"You shall surely help him raise it up"¹⁶,

"You shall surely return it to him"¹⁷

etc.)?

[And even if the verse intended to be stringent and prohibit it with a negative commandment — then first and foremost it should have written the main point,

the obligation

(a positive commandment)

to save his fellow

(as in the above commandments to save the property of one's fellow),

and afterwards also add a negative commandment].

And from this it is understood,

that the intention of the verse is not to introduce the essential obligation to save one's fellow from danger of death

[and especially since this obligation is learned from a kal vachomer from that which one is obligated to help one's fellow in any matter,

even saving his money as above,

and all the more so in saving his life¹⁸]

— rather, there is in this verse a novelty in the manner of the obligation of saving one's fellow that cannot be learned from another place.

And this novelty is emphasized in the language of the verse "Do not stand upon the blood of your fellow",

for from this it is proven that the discussion is about a situation that gives place to say that it is permitted for a person to stand and delay from saving him,

and upon this comes the command of the verse "Do not stand etc."

How so? — when one's fellow is in such danger that saving him involves danger to the life of the rescuer.

And consequently it is understood,

that in this manner it is possible to say that a person can

(and perhaps even more — is obligated)

to remain standing in his place,

so as not to endanger himself¹⁹.

And for this a special command comes: "You shall not stand by the blood of your fellow,"

for since it speaks of "the blood of your fellow,"

danger of death

(and not merely a wound,

and all the more so not merely money),

it is forbidden to stand and "see his death" but rather one is obligated to save him²⁰.

But on the other hand it is understood,

that if the action of<pg>123</pg>

The rescue can cause danger to the rescuer in a way that it casts doubt on the possibility of the rescue — then it is logical to say

(In study according to the simple meaning)

that one is not obligated to endeavor to save his fellow²¹.

And this is the precise wording of Rashi "and you can save him" — for even though the Torah warned "do not stand by the blood of your fellow",

here, in what matters are the words said, that a person is obligated to place himself in a situation of possible danger

(And "do not stand etc.")

— when it is clear that the person is able to save his fellow,

"you can save him"²²,

and the concern of danger will not affect the certainty of the rescue; but if it is doubtful,

a person should not endanger himself for a doubtful rescue of his fellow.

And based on this it is understood that Rashi needs to bring a specific example for a situation of danger about which the Torah commanded "Do not stand by the blood of your fellow" — to describe such a tangible reality,

that has in it both extremes: concern of danger to the rescuer

(therefore the verse needs to innovate "Do not stand by the blood of your fellow"),

and on the other hand,

the danger does not contradict the rescue,

and the rescue is certain "you can save him".

And such an example is the combination of two-three matters of danger mentioned above as follows.

4.

Explanation of the matter:

Rashi already established a great principle in his commentary

(as is well-known²³)

"The Scripture speaks of the commonplace",

and it is understood that accordingly, Rashi in his commentary also brings examples from the commonplace and ordinary.

And so it is with our matter,

that the example that Rashi brought is a "commonplace" and ordinary situation

(and especially in Rashi's days)

that the danger to the rescuer is in a manner that does not cast doubt on the rescue operation.

That is to say:

In the usual manner — the danger of bandits or a wild animal applies to a person who is on the road²⁴

Alone,

Without a caravan etc.

And if so,

A person who encounters

(In his walking on the road)

His fellow when a wild animal or bandits come upon his fellow,

Then in the usual manner he is not in a situation of "you can save him"

(Certainly),

And on the contrary, he is in the same danger exactly as his fellow,

And there is here no ability and certain rescue²⁵.

And therefore Rashi brings an example of "one drowning in a river",

that this is a present and regular situation in general&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;,

and likewise in the detail of "you can save him" — that when a person drowns in a river this is because a "&lt;pg&gt;124&lt;/pg&gt;

stormy wind comes and lifts its waves"&lt;sup&gt;*26&lt;/sup&gt;

and the person is weary and tired and the like,

and his fellow

(who is on dry land)

can certainly save the drowning one — "you can save him".

And in order to explain that the discussion is about a situation where there is a concern of danger to the rescuer

(even though it is still clear that "you can save him"),

Rashi adds — "or a wild animal or bandits are coming upon him",

that is,

that the novelty of the Torah in "do not stand by the blood of your fellow"

("to see his death and you can save him")

is emphasized in the case of a person drowning in a river,

and in addition "a wild animal or bandits are coming upon him"&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;,

and incidentally there is a concern of danger

(also)

to the rescuer,

for such is the nature of things,

that a wild animal coming to attack the one drowning in a river and someone comes to save him,

will come and also fall upon the rescuer&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;.

But nevertheless it is still within the category of "you can save him"

(certainly),

for such a concern of danger does not detract from the ability to save itself,

rather there is a concern that after the rescue&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

the wild animal will take revenge on the rescuer as above.

And accordingly Rashi's wording is precise: "a wild animal" simply and not "a vicious wild animal" — because

[in addition to the fact that it is not common and frequent that a vicious wild animal would come by a river

(which is near a settlement),

here moreover and primarily]

: if a vicious wild animal is coming upon him,

then the rescuer too is in a situation of certain danger

(in the usual manner and "commonly")

which casts doubt on the possibility of rescue,

and then he is not obligated to put himself into such danger for the sake of a doubtful rescue of his fellow.

And therefore Rashi is precise that the discussion is about a "wild animal" plain,

which generally does not constitute a danger to a person,

because it is afraid of him&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

but in this example,

when it sees a person drowning in a river

(which is against nature)

flailing his hands and feet and becoming weak etc. it is not afraid to pounce on him etc.

But regarding the rescuer,

who is not in a state of weakness etc.,

this is only a mere concern,

and therefore a person is obligated to save his fellow,

"Do not stand by the blood of your fellow."

And with this will also be understood the reason that Rashi precedes "wild animal" to "bandits" — because

(In addition to this that by a river wild animals are found more than bandits,

and this is more "common",

behold)

In this Rashi hints,

that the "bandits" here are of a type similar to the "wild animal" preceding this,

that it is not a vicious wild animal but a plain wild animal

(as above)

— and likewise the discussion here is not about bandits prepared to pounce on any person etc.

(for then also the rescuer is in that certain danger),

but rather bandits such that generally are afraid of people,

but when they see "drowning in a river"

(who is very weak)

they will pounce on him etc.

5.

And one may add another reason — in the manner of the halachah — that Rashi was not satisfied with the examples of "bandits come upon him or a wild beast comes upon him" by themselves,

but only in combination with the example of "drowning in a river"

(as above)

— that this is not only because drowning in a river is a common example in "the present",

but because according to Rashi's method

(in his commentary on the Torah),

even in a situation where the act of the &lt;pg&gt;125&lt;/pg&gt;

saving from a wild beast or bandits involves only a concern of danger for the rescuer

(and not certain danger),

and furthermore,

that "you can

(surely)

save him",

nevertheless in these cases,

there is no obligation

(according to Rashi on the Torah)

to place oneself in a concern of danger for the sake of saving one's fellow.

And the reason — according to what was explained by us,

that the reality of "bandits come upon him or a wild beast comes upon him" in the usual manner

(in the "present"),

is in a person who walks on a path alone; and it is found,

that this person placed himself in a place of danger,

because he should not have walked alone but rather joined a caravan etc.

And consequently there is room to say,

that they are not obligated to exert themselves in saving him in all manners.

For even though it is simple that if it is in the power of someone to save him certainly

("you can save him")

without placing himself in danger,

he is obligated in this — nevertheless,

if the act of rescue involves a suspicion of danger to the rescuer,

it is reasonable to say,

that he is not obligated to place himself in a suspicion of danger for his fellow who placed himself in a place of danger³¹.

6.

"Minyana shel Torah" that is in Rashi's commentary:

Known is the saying of the Baal Shem Tov³²,

that everything that a Jew sees or hears he must learn from it a lesson in his service to his Creator.

And seemingly the words are compelled from the statement of our Sages³³

"Everything that the Holy One, blessed be He, created in His world, He did not create a single thing for naught",

and "Everything that the Holy One, blessed be He, created in His world, He created it only for His glory"³⁴.

From this it is understood,

that when a person sees or hears some thing,

it must be said that this hearing or seeing is not "for naught",

and furthermore,

it is for His glory.

And this is the content of the words of the Baal Shem Tov,

that a person must utilize this hearing or seeing for His service,

the purpose of his creation,

"I was created to serve my Creator".

And one can say that this is the hint in the language of Rashi "to see in his death and you can save him" — for these are interdependent,

that this very thing that you see your fellow in danger of death

("to see in his death"),

this is proof that "you can save him",

that you are given the power to save him,

for if not,

why did they show you this?

And did not the Holy One, blessed be He, create a single thing — including also this sight — in vain!

And from this also a clear instruction for our generation in particular,

that many of our brethren the children of Israel are in the diaspora in a state of actual spiritual drowning in practice

(and this is included in "the blood of your fellow"³⁵)

— that the Torah warned "Do not stand upon the blood of your fellow",

and it is incumbent upon each and every one the obligation to do all that is in his power to save them and to revive their soul.

And if the evil inclination comes with a claim — who am I and what am I that I can revive the soul of the other?

Behold, about this Rashi says "to see his death and you can save him",

and as above in the explanation of the words,

that this itself that you see his death — that it reached your awareness and knowledge that plu-&lt;pg&gt;126&lt;/pg&gt;

he is in such a situation,

this is a complete proof,

that "you can save him" — that to you were given the powers to fix this,

and upon you depends the matter to restore and revive his soul,

by means of Torah and mitzvos,

that you engage in spreading Torah and Judaism!

And through the action of each one of us to draw close the heart of Israel to our Father in Heaven,

we bring near and hasten the coming of Mashiach our Righteous One,

that "he will compel all of Israel to go in it

(in the path of the Torah)

and to strengthen its breach"&lt;sup&gt;36&lt;/sup&gt;,

speedily in our days, literally.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Kedoshim 5746)