The articles in this column are transcriptions and adaptations of shiurim by Rav Joseph Ber Soloveitchik, zt”l. The Rav’s unique perspective on Chumash permeated many of the shiurim and lectures he presented at various venues over a 40-plus-year period. His words add an important perspective that makes the Chumash in particular, and our tradition in general, vibrant and relevant to our generation.
In Parshas Emor, the Torah obligates us to sanctify the name of Hashem: “V’nikdashti btoch Bnei Yisrael.” The corresponding negative mitzvah (lo taaseh) is stated in the first half of the verse, not to blaspheme the sanctified name of Hashem (“Lo techalelu es shem kadshi”). From this verse, we derive the principle of Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor regarding the big three mitzvos – one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress illicit relationships, murder or idolatry. There also are other situations when one must surrender his life, for instance during a She’as Hashemad, a period of religious coercion. One fulfills the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem (sanctifying Hashem’s name) when he submits himself to be killed in such situations. By not submitting, he violates the prohibition of Chillul Hashem (desecrating Hashem’s name).
The Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, chapter 5) discusses the laws of Kiddush Hashem and Chillul Hashem. He begins with the laws of Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor and concludes with additional situations of Chillul Hashem that cast aspersions on the Torah or its scholars. He cites examples, based on the Gemara (Yuma 86a), including a scholar who purchases on credit, or who walks four cubits without tefillin.
Rambam intentionally connected these different sorts of Chillul Hashem in the same chapter. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 61b) quotes the dispute between Abaye and Rava regarding one who worships idolatry out of fear of being killed, whether he is guilty for transgressing idolatry. Tosfos asks, if he does not violate the prohibition in this case, then why else would there be a mitzvah of Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor?
In Sefer Hamitzvos (Aseh 9), Rambam says that there is a mitzvah to sanctify the name of Hashem and to offer our lives in order that the coercer not think that we have succumbed to denying our faith (over al hadas), even though the Jew knows full well in his heart that he is steadfast in his faith. This is basically the story of Chana and her children who refused to bow down before the idol (See Gittin 57b), even when their action would have been clearly attributable to picking up the ring and not worshiping the idol. Even if there is no transgression of idolatry per se, one must still fulfill the obligation of Kiddush Hashem to clearly demonstrate that the Jew cannot be coerced to surrender his faith.
Rambam quotes the example of Chanania, Mishael and Azariah who refused to bow down before Nebuchadnezzar and were thrown into the furnace. Rambam describes their strength at a time when all people, including the Jews, bowed before the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, and no one stood up to sanctify the name of Hashem. Instead, all the people were fearful of the king, bringing great shame on all of Israel, as they had neglected and forgotten the obligation of Kiddush Hashem. Their act of Kiddush Hashem, according to Rambam, returned the honor of Israel. The Rambam stresses that the obligation of Kiddush Hashem is paramount, especially during exceptional situations, similar to when the entire world was fearful of the king.
At Har Sinai, Hashem gave the Jews the Torah through kolei kolos, with a tumultuous reception. Rashi comments that the second Luchos were given without accompanying fanfare, Moshe alone ascended the mountain. The tumultuous manner in which the first Luchos were given was an ayin hara, which presaged the eventual destruction of those Luchos. The question is: why did Hashem give the first Luchos through kolei kolos even though He knew that this would be a harbinger of their ultimate destruction?