Rambam’s Letters (Pt IV) | Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz

I lost the dedications. Kana, I I lost the dedication just last. Okay. I'm gonna read some dedications. Yeah, I got it. Get another. There's another one. Oh, there's another one. Yeah. Here. Yeah. Uh today's Shir is sponsored uh by Rak Steiner in me in in honor of her new greatgrandson Mazav Mazavv Mora Yehuda named for his greatgrandfather Mark Steiner of Raka that many of us including myself uh considered Mark a very very dear friend and a brilliant scholar and uh may this perpetuate his nishama. Uh in addition our shar is dedicated anonymously. I am technologically challenged uh for the reformer Vana Bat Bluma and Eveina Bat Galina. May she have a refor may they have a reforel. Okay. So uh we are continuing um a discussion of uh Earit Hashmad or Mama Kush Hashem. There are two names here and uh at this point uh the Rambam actually goes into the pureic part of the letter because obviously the Rambam has to address the issue when must a Jew give up his life when must you be willing to die rather than transgress the Torah because that's really a central issue here. uh that uh this rabbi, this anonymous rabbi uh told the Jews that they would have to submit to death rather than profess belief in Islam. And if they did not do so, they are goyam in the eyes of God and any mitzvot they do are totally rejected. So the Rambam needs in addition to the muser that we looked at the to that the Rambam gave to the rabbi the Rambam now will discuss the actual of martyrdom and I have to say that this letter was written when the Rambam was as I say at the age of 27. uh most of it was incorporated in the later Mishna Torah but there are some differences between his masot in the Mishna Torah and what he wrote in uh I'll try to point it out as we come as we come to them. Uh obviously we start off with the basic idea that everybody knows that nephesh saving a human life generally overrides virtually every commandment of the Torah. uh that is derived actually from a in last week's paraos the first of the two parot that the Torah was given so that we should live and interpret that to mean that the Torah was not given uh that we should die the Torah was given that we should live erggo that is the source surprisingly enough. I mean, I remember it's interesting, you know, because it's a little bit of a a linguistic stretch that is. So, I remember when I when I heard this, I think the first time I heard it, I was in the fourth grade and I said, "Come on, that can't be, you know, a real druss." I almost thought it was a joke. But but that is the dr of kazal that from the we learn out the not only the but the mitzvah of pikuesh. Now the garra in Yuma gives another which is really unique to Shabbat and it says the following shabas. It is better to desecrate one shabas to keep somebody alive in order that they should be able to keep many shabasot in the future. meaning more of a pragmatic idea that what are you going to say? I'm not going to desecrate Shabas so the person will die if the person will die he will not be observing the shabas in the future. Therefore it is worthwhile to desecrate one shabas in order to facilitate the observance of many shabases. Now the MS is the says a very remarkable which is not the says that if the justification for Shabas is the ability to keep more Shabas in the future let's say a person's condition is such where even if you intervene to extend his life he's not going to make it till next Shabas meaning uh he's going to die now but if I violate the Shabas I can keep him alive for two days. So says the archam there's not going to be any future shabases uh in that situation. Therefore you would not be allowed to desecrate Shabas to save his life. Uh but Kineski points out quite properly so that is absolutely not the uh we desecrate Shabbat even to keep a person alive for one minute. If a person without intervention is gonna die at 10 o'clock and by intervening and desecrating Shabbat, I can keep him alive till 10:01 the is I do it. Again, I'm not dealing with prolonging suffering. That's another issue. But in the absence of an issue of prolonging suffering is soi says obviously this is because the reason is the reason is not but by the way this comes up in another context as well nothing to do with uh this is the perennial question in the kiraim world. Can you invite somebody for a shabas meal if you know right you offer them a place but you know they're going to drive. So the problem is you're causing them to do an ara you have a problem of naive not putting a stumbling block before a person not causing them to sin. Soakina in a very famous chuva articulated the rationale that if this is a means or a mechanism that perhaps he will come to keep the shab although you don't know but there's a possibility that this may be a stepping stone by exposing him to shabas that he will be able to keep shabat in the future. So you're allowed to cause a Shabbat uh in the short term if there's a at least a probability that uh it will result in Shabbat in the long term. Yeah. Um there's a distinction because of helping somebody is you're doing the you're doing the whatever it's called for the other person whereas inem it's the person himself who is committing the whatever who is it. No, no, that's true. No, but that's true. But the truth of the matter is works for yourself too. For example, eating eating as an example, right? Uh if is doing the even somebody else is allowed even somebody else even somebody else. Uh in fact now now it is brought down it is brought down that if you could save a person's life by the use of a gentile or or a you know, etc. And there would not be a there would not be a delay. There would not be a delay. You tried to do it through uh non-Jews if possible. Uh but if there's any element of delay, a Jew should do it. I mean, I remember in my own show when I was a rob in Silver Spring. So the one of the elderly parents with one of our congregants uh fainted uh in the middle of Davening. Uh we didn't know what it was. Uh so I went I went to the phone uh to call uh ambulance or 911 and I I left I left the door open the door to the office open so specifically people would see I was using the phone because it's an important point to communicate that for Piku nephesh there's a to violate shabas. So, I still remember some um 10-year-old kid walked by and said, "Hey, the rabbi is using the phone, whatever." But I guess that was part that was part of the point. Uh Hashem, it turned out uh the man the man was okay. Uh he was just dehydrated. Uh so the question then becomes, well, did I violate Shabas since there was no satana? No. No. Obviously not. Obviously not. uh if you violate Shabas or not I shouldn't even call it violation because you think it's a never situation even if blessedly so it turns out not to be uh you did exactly the right the right thing. Yeah. So this is a little off topic. If you're traveling and you come across traffic or whatever, are you obligated to leave your car and somehow just walk a couple of miles? Cuz I was told if you left enough time to get to your destination, you should just continue and uh Okay. Okay. So, so first of all, it is true that if getting out of the car that's in the middle of a highway would be that would be a but but putting aside and just focusing on the so it really depends uh if you are being driven, if you're on a bus, if you're on a train, uh you can just keep going. On the other hand, if you're actively doing the driving, uh that's an act of shabas. If it's not, you do have to get out of you do have to get out of the car. the key when you get out of the car because if you're carrying No, no. I This is like just a very practical thing. What do you do with the key? You know. Yeah. Well, the the answer is you should uh hope for the best. You should hide the key. Hide the key somewhere there. And uh hopefully it'll be there when uh when you when you do it. I mean, I I I myself uh I mean, I think maybe once I I kind of I mean, it was like a big snowstorm in uh Silver Spring in Maryland and um I had to get out of the car. something. I mean, it wasn't uh it was like three three or four miles from uh from my house, but but it wasn't on a major highway. It was in already in in town. Uh but yeah, sometimes you got to do it. But but if on the other hand, you're on a train or a bus, even if the bus stops, uh but it's not where you have to go, you you can keep on going till it goes. Yeah. It happened once to my husband also. It was a snowstorm and he was coming home, driving home, right? and he got stuck. Yeah. He pulled off behind leg. Yeah. And he pulled into a driveway, an old car. Yeah. And he explained to the person Yeah. and asked if it would be all right if he parked his car in the driveway until after the Sabbath and they just allowed it. And these were non non-Jewish people. I think non-Jewish people. He walked home and we didn't know where he was. So he came home came home midnight or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's uh Yeah. Yeah. You got to you got to be careful. Yeah. In the car walked and the street first street was the Lord's way leading him right to the sh was taken in by the rabbi and he had a wonderful shopping. So no burkashm uh yeah a lot of times uh stranded travelers kind of go into the from community an unknown from community and burkashem they found have hospitality. I mean I know myself there are people who have become there are people who have become religious precisely when they got a sense that no matter where they are in the world uh north from cup from person will give them hospitality no matter where it is even if they never knew you they never saw you and that that is enormously impressive that's a keshashem that actually moves people sometimes to become religious yeah question yeah I'll that there. Yeah. My my neck is uh turned. Yeah. Man was driving Friday going home. Yeah. He was speeding because it was late. Policeman stopped him and he explained that it's close to the Sabbath. Then he has to get home. Right. Policeman said, "You're an Orthodox Jews in New York." Yeah. Going to the five towns. The policeman said, "Let me see your strength." So he said, "Afternoon." They're gone already. Wait a minute. So he said, "Okay, let me see your strings." Luckily, he had six and he let it go. Yeah. Someone had a question. Yeah. Yeah. Shabbat action. Okay. So this um this is very very interesting. Yeah. Yeah. The question is you know we desecrate Shabas to save the life of a Jew. So the question becomes uh can we desecrate Shabas to save the life of a non-Jew right? Uh so this is a very very difficult uh area. Uh the bottom line is we do but the way we get to it is very very problematical. According to the Mishna the and the to desecrate the shabas in order to I use the word descate actually it's not a desecration but to to do what otherwise would be forbidden on shabas in order to save a life only applies to a Jewish life and there is no nephesh to save a non-Jewish life uh which means uh every few years there's an article in Mariv orot about which almost always affect a lie a fake story about a guy a guy had a heart attack in the middle of Benabra and nobody come Huh no no no if you don't No I understand okay no you're right you're right you're you're you're right but I'm I'm talking about in theory whatever it would be uh you know so I was going to say the pope had a hard okay you know even even with the pope even with the pope you don't know the pope so Jew well yeah it's true well well the the fir the first pope for sure was Jew English uh you know uh heather. Okay. Yeah. Actually, actually I noticed something about the just digress for a second. Uh the new pope, very nice guy from Chicago, Pope Bob they call him. His name is Robert Robert Pablio. But um in his uh in his speeches he mentions God. He doesn't mention Yuska so much. He mention talks a lot about God. It's very very strange. Uh you know he doesn't mention Yashka so much. He talks God, God, God, relationship with God. So some people say, "Well, may maybe maybe he's Jewish, you know, who knows?" But okay. Anyway, um but again, I understand if you don't know, of course, you have to heir on the side of of of intervention. But strictly speaking, uh you don't save the life of a guy. However, however, here's what theor says. If not saving the life of a non-Jew is going to cause enmity and hatred towards the Jewish people, this is called AVA. So in such a situation, not saving the non-Jew is going to result in endangerment to the Jewish people and therefore as a practical answer we do intervene to save the life of a non-Jew. Now Raf Salvich used to point out that although this is a pragmatic resolution of the issue, uh many feel it's not necessarily an ethical resolution of the issue because essentially what you're saying is the non-Jewish life is not important enough to violate Shabas, but I'm going to do so because it's going to protect Jewish lives. So practically, it makes no difference. We're gonna call out Solah. going to uh desecrate the Shabas but only because of the endangerment of Kalisrael which would mean for example if you're on a desert island right Robinson let's say Robinson Crusoe is Jewish uh and he's with his man Friday uh and no one else is ever going to know uh and Friday has a heart attack and Robinson Crusoe would have to desecrate Chavez whatever the case would be strictly speaking not so it is indeed a difficult difficult ethical problem and uh both Rafalic and Rabiak of Weinberg the day who was um a bit of an earlier god uh they both considered this to be uh virtually the most difficult ethical in the in the but nevertheless as I say it is important to know that practically we will violate chabas in a hospital setting or whatever to save a nonju by the way interesting I'll leave you again I'm digressing a a little bit but I'll leave you with one other interesting mlo we shown him. Let's say you have a that is in a state of sakana and the doctors say he must eat meat. Meat will somehow keep him keep him going and it's shabas and you have a choice. you can give him cooked trafe meat in which case you won't have to uh violate the shabas or you would have if the only kosher meat you would either have to she let's say you don't or the other I mean let's assume that you already have trace meat whether it's cooked or not so you're going to cook it the kosher meat you're going to have to she so even though both both in both cases you're going to cook but if I give them kosher meat I'm going to have to do an extra mala of shita for is it better to a co kosher animal on shabas or to feed the the trafe meat that's already sheeded maybe already cooked even and the like. So although one would have argued that it's better to give him trafe because trafe is a lower level prohibition than chabas and if you could help him with a lower level prohibition better to do that than a higher level prohibition like shabas but hakically it's not that way we actually on shabas rather than give him tra meat and there's a whole discussion why one of the reasons the raan says is it's a question of quantity of sin versus quality of sin and that is qualitative atively the desecration of shabas is worse than eating trafee but with trafe every mouthful is a separate sin mashen the slaughtering of the animal is one a how about cooking well our assumption is you're going to cook the tra that was my hypo hypothetical meaning you're going to cook it anyway cook in either case you're going to cook in either case so the question is the extra thing is going to be the shita so under those circumstances uh we actually asking that uh quantity of sin overrides quality of sin. Therefore, better to do one act of Shabbat of Shikita than to create multiple aos with every mouthful of the trauma [Music] is one process. To get close to me, you have to drain the blood. You have to casure it. You have to salt it and everything. So by the time the check has meat available no of course you know again the these are hypothetical questions. I mean obvious obviously if the delay in preparing the kosher meat is going to be any type of compromise of his health then of course you go straight to the trape assumption again we're making hypothetical assumptions that the time factor wouldn't wouldn't come in but yeah you have a good point yeah yeah one sec yeah actually started and these questions arose having to deal with a guy you know being called to take care of and what we do with the ambulance to return it through it. Yeah. Yeah. And he said you do everything because it's a it's co before you have to return it so that God forbid the next one comes. So you have in other words you can't look at the thing specifically hypothetically put it into a board picture and it incases many more. Yeah that that's that's very true. This is a very very interesting uh complicated area and that is let's say hatsah right there's no question they can certainly go out to save lives question is can they bring the ambulance back can they even go home and the like and rashman has a very very famous response in which he actually permits even the return trip not only of the ambulance which may be needed for other missions but even of the individual people on the arguments based on a gamorra that if people will not be able to return, they may be at least psychologically a little reluctant to volunteer and to go out. And this is a principle that the Mishna calls they permit the end in order to facilitate the beginning. Uh that's a little controversial. Mosha function was not necessarily uh absolutely supportive of it but but so Pascin and again different hotel workers have different practices but the ambulance itself does have to return that's for sure that has to be returned to the main uh place or wherever they keep it because it'll it has to be necessary for potential further missions even though even though you don't know but there's a possibility it will be needed needed again. Okay. So, this is our starting point, right? Our starting point is obvious. I'm sorry. Did I question? Yeah. A few years ago, I got a call. I got a knock on the door. Can I have the keys to the car? Yeah. My friend's son is in the army, a truck overturned on him. And I I was told after I gave her the keys. They told me later that Pikuak because she would be able to help him, she was allowed to go. And this is probably very pertinent to a parent or a relative today who gets a call. What did they do? So anyway, I gave you the then they told me it did the right thing. Yeah. Uh okay. You know, again, these are very individualized cases. What you might call psychological help, meaning uh someone, God forbid, is in a u life endangerment situation. Uh you and they're in a hospital, they're being taken care of medically, but if they would see you, you would visit them. that could pick up their their their spirits. Uh so that's a very very difficult shila whether the psychological dimension of having a parent there or a loved one there uh does that qualify as beak. Now I will tell you I mean um as a very common example of this is when a woman goes into labor and uh child birth is considered to be neesh and of course uh we violate the shabas and the yum kipper. we try to get a non-Jewish driver, but but if indeed uh you can't get a non-Jewish driver or we take too long uh the husband or anyone uh a Jewish person drives to the hospital, although it's kind of a nightmare. Where do you park the car? Where do you stop the car? It's extremely complicated, but in terms of getting her to the hospital for sure. So the question would be can an extra person come along like a husband if he's not the driver or the like. And often we we say that the accompanyment of of that extra person is part of the nephesh process because it alleviates tension. It calms a person down and we recognize that that's in fact it's all interesting thing. I mean let's imagine this. Someone is neesh and they're watching television in the hospital and they ask you to change the channel you know or turn on turn on the TV. Well, is that it's not chabas? Let's say uh is that pico? I'll get a nurse to do that for you. See if I can find. Yeah, but the truth is Salvik was madak from the Rambam that once a person is in a state of sana. you do whatever makes him more comfortable even if it's not directly you know medically contributing to the getting him out of the danger because you never know a person in a more relaxed state uh is you know going to recover better than someone not in that state so now of course you get a non-Jewish nurse if you can that that's always going to be the case but if push came to shove and you were the only person according to Rafaim's understanding of the Rambam you can actually turn on the television or turn on the stereo or turn on the music for a person that is a I'm sorry I didn't hear you. Back to the issues on the road. Yeah. Late on a Friday. Yeah. On the other side of the ocean, not here. Car disabled on a major artery blocking all the traffic. Well, I I will tell you I will tell you uh in many many cases that is uh mamesh that a car is going by high speed. It's not just a question you're you're causing t for other people. I mean the problem is going to be these cars whiz by and you know they'll just smash into you. But if the traffic's already stopped, well I would just wait for the the police will be there shortly. Uh Well, so so so what what what are the alternatives here? I mean, uh I don't know. I mean, you can wait. You can wait for the police and tell the police I if it's already dark, I can't drive and they'll they'll take the car to the side or something like that and then you're stuck and then you might be stuck. But maybe, you know, uh I know that for the men, we have the the strings or the straps. Uh I don't know how how the woman would show. maybe the shaitato, I don't know. Um, whatever it would be, but hope you could ask the police to drive you into the community that that you'd be allowed to to to have them do. And hope hopefully hopefully they'll accommodate. I I hope. Yeah. Um, I was a a doula, you know, birth coach for many many years and Ravoitz said to me, I asked him about getting back after I'd been in the hospital with the woman, right? And he said, "If you go with the staff in their car anyway, they're going around, but you cannot have him stop for you. You can only get out in the closest place that one of them is the the drivers were Jewish or not Jewish." Uh, in your situation, what I can't remember. Yeah. I mean, okay. It would depend. If it's a non-Jewish situation, you could go home. And uh again, you could you could be dropped off at your house. I mean that that's what he says. Okay. Yeah. If you're not physically dead, are you allowed to do anything brain dead? Okay. This is really take takes us far far a field. Uh the question is uh the den that were mal shabas uh for a person does that apply uh even if a person is brain dead. Now now again this this itself requires a whole definition because brain dead is not the same as coma. Now if a person's in a coma what's called a persistent vegetative state uh even if it seems like he'll never come out of the coma you are 100% uh you violate chabas for that person. Uh now brain dead is beyond that. Brain dead is already a diagnosis that the brain stem is not functioning and according to some hahic opinions a brain dead person is halically dead. A comeosse person is not uh but a brain dead person might be hakically dead and th those are the opinions that permit organ removal from brain dead people. However, since many postm do say the person's alive. So at a minimum we would treat a brain deadad person as a safk if he's alive or or dead and as a result uh we would violate shabas because of the safet. Now uh if you ask if you would have asked Rabbi Tendler Mosha David Tendler if you could be Mal Shabas for a brain dead person I assume he would answer no because his position was his position was that a brain dead person is 100% dead and if that is the case you cannot violate the shabas for the dead only for the living but most postkim treat it at least as a safk and therefore you'd have to desecrate But again, I have to emphasize I mean I this really deserves a whole other share on its own. Uh do not under any circumstances confuse the term brain dead with coma. We of people often describe uh patients in comas as being brain dead. That is not the case. A person in a coma uh may lack consciousness and higher mental functioning but the brain stem is intact. Like people in comas can often breathe without respirators. They are able to breathe and and digest and their systems are working even though they lack mental consciousness. A person in a coma is 1,000% huckically alive. And to remove an organ from a person in a coma, which some medical ethicists have proposed, by the way, uh is an act of murder. And actually under the present state of secular law, even under secular law, it's an act of murder. and kalr under halaka but brain death is beyond that brain death is a neurological determination that even the brain stem is not working there's no capacity of respiration and the breathing is only done by the machine uh so that is a big maklo and that's the major maklocus about organ donation u those because organ donation is predicated on brain death but because of the respirator the heart is getting oxygen the heart continues to beat and then you can therefore you could remove it. So those who say brain death is death will consider organ donation a mitzvah. Those who consider brain death not death consider organ donation murder. So it's either the biggest of a or it's the biggest mitzvah because the whole organ donation industry depends on accepting brain death as your definition of death. uh as it is in the United States, as it is under the uh law of Israel as well. For many years, although the Rabanut goes back and forth, but all the way back in the 1980s, the Rabanut did allow Hadasa Hospital to do uh heart transplants based on the um acceptance of brain death criteria. But you know, the Rabut changes a lot. The Rabut goes from to noted whatever it is. So I I think the later Rabuts withdrew uh their authorization, but I don't know if Hadasa cares or Hadasa is even bound by by that. So I I honestly don't know. Um my impression is people who need heart transplants tend to go to kutzlars. I'm not sure if they do heart transplants uh in Israel. There wouldn't be enough of a supply anyway because people aren't people aren't giving. Uh but uh this is the issue. So, but if it's a sock, okay, so this is all the general rule. Uh, so I'm about where I wanted to start. Uh, and we now have the, uh, three exceptions. There are three exceptions where a Jew must give his life or her life before they transgress. This is called uh yehareg vaor to be killed and to not transgress. And these are the famous big three uh what is called idol worship. Giloarayos uh sexual immorality. Again we we'll define that. Andim to murder an innocent person to save your life you must give your life before you become a murderer of the innocent. Now these are the big three that under all and every condition a person must give his life. Now let's go over a few of these parameters. A vot now a vodor is obviously right obviously that's going to be the one that Earit Hashmad is going to be focusing on and the Rambam is first going to talk about this generally and then probably next week we'll talk about how he applied it to Egarit but a is going to be the focus here his profession of belief in Muhammad are going to be aar but but the Rambam first addresses it generally first of all what's the source of the big three uh so each one has its Mor uh the source that a Jew must give his life before he rejects God by a vodor is derived from the you shall love Hashem with all of your heart with all of your soul with all of your might or all of your money, all of your possessions. But focus on the on the middle one. You shall love Hashem with all of your soul that your love of God must be so great that if you're called upon to repudiate the almighty your love of God says I will give my life before I will do that. That's the makuru who know if you remember this is exactly what Rabi Aka declared as he was being tortured uh to death with iron hooks or iron combs flailing his flesh uh and uh his toidim said to him how could this be the reward of such a man who who served Hashem as you served Hashem and Rebi Aka said all of my life I was waiting to fulfill the verse of giving your life for Hashem and now I have the chance to fulfill giving my life for so that's the source for a desor now the source for Gilarayos is a bit more indirect the Tyra in paraset talks about a betrothed woman a woman who's married Naraasa she is married and she's raped. She's attacked by somebody. And it makes an interesting distinction between her being in a city where there are people around and her being in in an isolated area. Uh if she's in a city, again, this depends on the facts. This is not an ironclad rule. And theoretically, she could have called for assistance and she did not, she is equally guilty with the guy because she could have gotten out of it. Again, this is very fact dependent. If on the other hand, she's in an isolated area. So, this is against her will. So, the Torah says the rapist certainly gets the death penalty if there was witnesses and the like. But to the young woman, you shall not do anything. And it says the following. Because just as when somebody's the victim of a murder, it's not their fault they're being victimized. Had she is like a victim of a murder, right? This rapist is not murdering her but is doing the equivalent of that and therefore she is exempt from a punishment. So it is comparing the the rape to a murder. Now it's doing so in a different context. It's not talking about martyrdom. It's talking about uh why the victim doesn't get punished. But kazal use it as a more general rule. And that is just like in the case of murder. It's clear you're not allowed to murder to save your life. As we'll see who had forgos, you're not allowed to do gileas to save your life. In other words, the source of yehare al yavore with gilo arayas is because it's compared to murder. So we have a source for a we have a source for giloy arayos. So finally we need the source for murder. Where do we learn you can't murder to save your life? So here we no longer have a puk or adrasha. Here we have logic and the logic is my who says your blood is any redder meaning like this I can violate Shabbat to save a life because saving a life is more important than chabas that's the hierarchy I can violate kasheras to save a life because saving a life is more important than kashas I can violate jump kipper to save a life because saving life is more important than jump kipper But how can you possibly argue I can murder to save a life? Well, you're taking a life. So, who says your life is more important than somebody else's life? Now, what if I'm pretty sure it is? Meaning meaning what if somebody says to me kill that derelic drug addict or I'll kill you or your family. Now the is very clear. I cannot kill that drug addict because of the sor of my but wait a second. I don't know. I mean can't I make an assumption or what what what if you know uh someone says kill that bum or I'm going to kill the sadicore. Again, as difficult as it may be in terms of absolute pure logic, hala does not allow you to rank whose life is more important. Even though you have a pretty good educated guess, but you actually never know. You never know. You never know. Person has killed somebody like a terrorist. What happened? No. No. Okay. Okay. So, so obviously here's the thing. The that's why I kept on saying that the principle is you don't kill an innocent person to save your life or to save other people's lives. Even if someone says kill this innocent kill this person or I'm going to wipe out your family. Horrendous horrendous horrendous. You can't you can't you can't do it. Now you cannot say well well okay I'll get to that. I mean that you can't save your family by killing by killing somebody that that now here's the thing. There are cases where this doesn't apply and that's the law of rodeave. Rodeave is uh you're allowed to kill the one that poses the threat. So if a terrorist goes over to you and says, "Kill that Jew or I'll wipe out your family," you are certainly allowed and even commanded to kill the terrorist if you can. Except he's got the knife for you. Yeah. But to kill innocent people to save even other innocent people, you're not allowed because of the of my now the Gomorrah applies this even in numbers. Uh this is the famous case in which uh a non-Jewish army in fact this happened in the Holocaust quite quite a lot surrounds a Jewish city and says give us a Jew to kill or we will wipe out the whole city. Now here you might think well if I give them a Jew they're killing one person. Uh if I don't give them the Jew they're going to kill the whole city. You say they'll stop with one. Well, you never know. Okay. But so the is the whole city gets killed. You don't deliver. Now there's a fascinating what if they ask for a specific person. Meaning they don't just say give us a Jew because we want to make some. They say give us a Goldberg. Now this is a big mlo according to one opinion in the US. If they ask for a specific person, that person becomes like an involuntary rodeave. He is the source of endangering the whole community. Even though it's not his intention and as a result, you do deliver him. Uh the Rambam actually Poskins under those circumstances you still don't deliver him and the whole city gets gets destroyed. uh that is is like the Rambam that you do not uh deliver the person uh unless the person is guilty of of an actual crime meaning if the person was guilty of a crime you are allowed to deliver him uh but if he's an innocent person uh even if he is specifically uh requested uh you don't do that and then we get into all sorts of questions um um again this is a fascinating issue and I'll probably have to maybe elaborate it next week. Uh but the issue would be uh shooting down a suicide plane. Let's let's see how you would analyze this. Uh 911 or whatever, right? So you have an airplane that is commandeered by terrorists that is going towards the Pentagon or going towards the World Trade Center. Now it's a diver pushet maote that if the only people on the plane were terrorists, of course you can shoot down the plane and kill the terrorists. The terrorists are rofim 1,00%. No problem. But here's the problem. I have 250 innocent or whatever people on the plane. So if I now if if I don't allow the plane I'm sorry, if I don't shoot down the plane, let's say 5,000 people are likely to die. If I shoot down the plane, I'm killing 250, but I'm saving 5,000. Am I allowed to kill the 250 in order to save the 5,000? So, the truth of the matter is, uh, you normally would not be allowed to, but here there's an additional leniency, and that is the 250 are going to die as part of the 5,000. Meaning, you couldn't kill 250 who would otherwise live in order to save the 5,000. That's for sure. So that that example will be the this is a whole branch of moral philosophy called trolley problems because uh trolley problem because it was formulated by um a a British a Cambridge professor of philosophy Dr. Philippa Foot who I think was the daughter or granddaughter of President Grover Cleveland. Uh Grover Cleveland had a distinction that lasted until the last election. and he was the only the only US president who was elected to two non-consecutive terms and that record stood until Trump Trump is now the the second person uh who did that. So apparently either his daughter or her granddaughter, I don't remember which one, uh she immigrated to England. She became a very distinguished professor of philosophy, married a guy whose name was Foots. I don't know what he what he did. And her uh her field was moral philosophy and she explored the idea of saving some lives at the expense of others. So her trolley situation is I'm a driver of a train of a tram of a trolley and the brakes fail and if I do nothing the trolley is going to keep on going and there are 10 children playing on the track. I'm not going to be able to stop the trolley but I can turn it onto a side track. But on the side track there's a worker who fell asleep on the track because it's an abandoned track. Kind of a stupid worker but but huh. Well again in the world of moral philosophy you know we just make assumptions you know we don't tell you know uh these are you know they say kashan misa so uh according to at least and she goes through utilitarianism and the like but according to you would not be allowed to swerve the train in order to hit the one guy because essentially what you would be doing is you would be killing an an innocent guy in order to save five that you're not allowed to do. Uh Masha Masha Kane in the suicide plane. It's a different dynamic there. Even though you're killing 250 to save the 5,000, but the 250 are going to die anyway. It's different than the trolley case where the guy would live. Now, Lisa the Kazones actually did permit you to swerve because his argument was this is not an act of murder. This is an act of rescue. Uh and the murder is only a collateral consequence because I'm not saving the kids because I'm killing the guy. I'm saving the kids because I got it off the track. Meaning, if this guy wouldn't be on the track, it would be just as good. It's not like the goyam saying kill or we will wipe out the city. I'm doing a mis of you see. So that's a very fascinating but the mainstream analysis is you who was was a good Jew. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. He should be Yes. Yes. Yes. The assumption is he he asked him before she killed No. No. The assumption is he's Jewish. Yeah. Yeah. That's that's the assumption. uh if he wouldn't be Jewish, although that's not politically correct, the actually says this is actually one of the most politically incorrect there is that although you're not allowed to kill a non-Jew generally, but he says you are allowed to kill a non-Jew in order to save the life of a Jew. So according to the we would be allowed to turn on the track. Say again. What forcing is requested by the enemy to save poor? So you're not allowed to give up a person. What if a person volunteers? Is that Yes. Yeah. So we're going to talk about that. Is there such a thing as voluntary martyrdom? Meaning we don't deliver a person to be killed in order to save other people's lives. Can a person volunteer to do so? Uh think about for example the that or even not who jumps on a grenade to prevent other people from being killed. Uh we we we'll we'll talk about this next week because this that's a whole subject of the notion of even if says you don't have to give you shouldn't give your life are you allowed to voluntarily give your life. But on the other hand, um uh if you have a bottle of water, one bottle of water in the desert and um there's two people and only one, you know, it won't be enough for both of them, then you throw them in. Yeah. I don't know if that's the same thing or not the same thing. Well, well, says you you are you are killing the other guy, but passively. Yeah. But but that but but that that that exactly is the difference. In other words, there is a difference between keeping for yourself the instrumentality of of rescue versus affirmatively killing. That's exact exactly the point. We're going to talk more about this uh again because what's interesting is although just to keep it on focus here the Rambam's focus is going to be on the avodor prong of vyavore in modern life most of the time the main questions are on the prong in which when can lives be sacrificed to save other other lives. uh even in a lot of rescue miss missions where you know um you intervene to save lives that'll often be at the expense of of other lives. So even though it's not directly what the Rambam is emphasizing in the eggeras I think the questions are important enough that that we we will talk about that as as well as as well as continuing the avoid discussion which is the Rambam's primary focus. We also want to talk a little bit about the Gilarayas thing uh even though that's not doesn't come up in this eigaret but just to go through the big the big three now with the Rambam is gonna yeah question living in a town louder please I'm living in a town near it's pram is starting pram yeah and they're killing Jews and someone comes into my house and looks at me and I tell them I'm not Jewish I'm a Christian. I believe in Jesus. Is that Yeah. Or is that smart? Okay. Well, well, okay. Very good. Uh that that is actually that is actually going to be the major thesis of the Rambam's eeris tan where the Rambam takes the position that it's smart. Uh there are going to be balatsos who take the position that it's forbidden. So we're going to see that's going to be a huge huge mlo. Can I say I'm a Christian in order to save my life or is that treated as a profession of idolatry and be forbidden? That is exactly the main eventual point of of the Rambam's but we we will uh we will talk about that. Okay. Um I I did get a message I guess I did I guess it didn't start this week that classes from that one are going to be uh that starts next week. That would make sense. Okay. Permanently after that. Permanently. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.