(Re)Introducing Chavlei Shlomo: The Mishlei Blog

Three years ago I started a second blog called Chavlei Shlomo (the Ropes of Solomon) to serve as sort of "Mishlei meeting grounds" where my friends and I could discuss the ideas of Mishlei. Originally, the blog was intended to be a collaborative project. Multiple authors could (and did) post their own insights into Mishlei. It was pretty cool while it lasted. Eventually, people (including myself) stopped posting. The blog fell into neglect, disrepair, and obscurity. Last time I checked, it seems that many of my friends aren't even aware of my second blog.

I taught a Mishlei class in the past two years in two different schools. Thankfully, my Mishlei chavrusa and I started the practice of writing four-sentence summaries of every pasuk we learned. These short summaries are saved on a Word document on my computer. Over the past two years, this document has grown to over 40 pages, and continues to grow with every new idea.

I occasionally wondered, "Why on earth am I keeping these summaries to myself?" I didn't want to post them on Kankan Ne'lam because the four-sentence summary format doesn't jive with the type of blog posts I'm accustomed to write here. Also, Chavlei Shlomo was intended to be more informal than Kankan Ne'lam, and I didn't want it to be plagued by the same writer's block problems that I routinely face here. Lastly, I want my Mishlei ideas to be kept in a separate location, devoted exclusively to Mishlei (and Koheles) in case they are discovered by other people who are interested in Mishlei, but are not partial to the type of ideas I take up on Kankan Ne'lam.

Last week I finally made the decision to renovate and reopen Chavlei Shlomo. For personal reasons I decided to nix the collaborative idea. Also, since I established that blog under my real name, I realized I'd have to take down and re-post all of the old posts under my pseudonym. Once I started doing this, I realized that I might as well take the time to re-edit all of those posts. And once I was already doing that, I decided to edit all of my summaries in my Word document (which I would have ended up doing before posting them anyway).

With the calculation and resolve of a demolition expert, I deleted all posts except for the original 2009 introduction and the post which explains the title of the blog. I revised the mission statement and added an explanation of the format I intended to use. I will replicate those statements here:

MISSION 

This blog is a place for me to jot down my Mishlei ideas and insights (and those of my friends and chavrusas), no matter how unpolished and underdeveloped they may be. 

This is an informal blog - a venue for thinking aloud, exploring different approaches, and "learning the ropes" of Mishlei. I will be writing primarily for myself and not to a "general audience." This doesn't mean you shouldn't ask for clarification - just don't have high expections of clarity in the posts themselves, especially considering the format (see below). 

This blog is also intended to serve as a repository for Mishlei ideas. That way, if I want to go back and review my prior understanding of the pesukim I've learned, the summaries will be accessible here. 

FORMAT 

I plan to have three different types of posts on this blog: 

(1) Short Summary: This format will be used for the majority of the posts on this blog. Whenever my primary Mishlei chavrusa (Levi) and I learn a pasuk, we conclude by typing a 1-4 sentence summary of the main idea. I decided to do this in order to develop the intellectual virtues of clarity and conciseness AND in order to curb my "perfectionism in writing" neuroses and minimize my trend of never-ending editing. I will permit myself to stretch these limitations (e.g. by using semicolons and numbered bullet points), but I will do my best to stick to the rule as much as possible. The advantage of this format is that I'll be able to record many Mishlei ideas with relatively little hassle. The disadvantage is that my explanations will be terse, and I will not be able to show how I arrived at the idea. 

(2) Mishlei Walkthrough: On rarer occasions, I'll post a full walkthrough of a Mishlei pasuk. I'll try to show in as much detail as possible how I analyzed the pasuk and arrived at the idea. This type of post will make up for the disadvantages of the Short Summary format. 

(3) Mishlei-themed Post: From time to time I will write a "normal" blog post (i.e. article style) on a general theme, insight, or application of Mishlei.

And so it is with great pleasure that I formally invite you to check out Chavlei Shlomo! I posted the first short summary today, and I will aim to try and post an additional summary every day until my preparations for the school year prevent me from doing so. Although I will not follow any order in my posts, I thought it would be fitting to begin with the first pasuk in the Second Book of Mishlei: "The proverbs of Solomon: a wise son gladdens his father, but a foolish son is his mother's sorrow" (10:1).

Enjoy!

Initial Readings of the Krias ha'Torah shel Tishah b'Av

The Torah reading on Tishah b'Av is from Devarim 4:25-40 (which happens to also be in this week's parshah). I decided to take a look at these pesukim in context in an attempt to gain insight into the theme of Tishah b'Av. Since I took a long nap on Shabbos and it will be a while before I fall asleep, I decided to ponder these pesukim aloud. 

First Set of Readings: Just the Facts

Here is the Artscroll translation of the entire 40 pesukim, divided only where the Torah itself makes a division:

Now, O Israel, listen to the decrees and to the ordinances that I teach you to perform, so that you may live, and you will come and possess the Land that Hashem, the God of your forefathers, gives you. You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor shall you subtract from it, to observe the commandments of Hashem, your God, that I command you. Your eyes have seen what Hashem did with Baal-peor, for every man that followed Baal-peor - Hashem, your God, destroyed him from your midst. But you who cling to Hashem, your God - you are all alive today. See I have taught you decrees and ordinances, as Hashem, my God, has commanded me, to do so in the midst of the Land to which you come, to possess it. You shall safeguard and perform them, for it is your wisdom and discernment in the eyes of the peoples, who shall hear all these decrees and who shall say, "Surely a wise and discerning people is this great nation!" For which is a great nation that has a God Who is close to it, as is Hashem, our God, whenever we call to Him? And which is a great nation that has righteous decrees and ordinances, such as this entire Torah that I place before you this day? Only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your soul, lest you forget the things that your eyes have beheld and lest you remove them from your hear all the days of your life, and make them known to your children and your children's children - the day that you stood before Hashem, your God, at Horeb, when Hashem said to me, "Gather the people to Me and I shall let them hear My words, so that they shall learn to fear Me all the days that they live on the earth, and they shall teach their children." So you approached and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain was burning with fire up to the heart of heaven, darkness, cloud, and thick cloud. Hashem spoke to you from the midst of the fire; you were hearing the sound of words, but you were not seeing a form, only a sound. He told you of His covenant that He commanded you to observe, the Ten Declarations, and He inscribed them on two stone Tablets. Hashem commanded me at that time to teach you decrees and ordinances, that you shall perform them in the Land to which you cross, to possess it. But you shall greatly beware for your souls, for you did not see any likeness on the day Hashem spoke to you at Horeb, from the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make yourselves a carved image, a likeness of any shape; a form of a male or a female; a form of any animal on the earth; a form of any winged bird that flies in the heaven; a form of anything that creeps on the ground, a form of any fish that is in the water under the earth; and lest you raise your eyes to heaven and you see the sun, and the moon, and the stars - the entire legion of heaven - and you be drawn away and bow to them and worship them, which Hashem, your God, has apportioned to all the peoples under the entire heaven! But Hashem has taken you and withdrawn you from the iron crucible, from Egypt, to be a nation of heritage for Him, as this very day. Hashem became angry with me because of you, and He swore that I would not cross the Jordan and not come to the good Land that Hashem, your God, gives you as a heritage. For I will die in this land; I am not crossing the Jordan - but you are crossing and you shall possess this good Land. Beware for yourselves lest you forget the covenant of Hashem, your God, that He has sealed with you, and you make yourselves a carved image, a likeness of anything, as Hashem, your God, has commanded you. For Hashem, your God - He is a consuming fire - a jealous God. 

When you beget children and grandchildren and will have been long in the Land, you will grow corrupt and make a carved image of anything, and you will do evil in the eyes of Hashem, your God, to anger Him. I appoint heaven and earth this day to bear witness against you that you will surely perish quickly from the Land to which you are crossing the Jordan to possess; you shall not have lengthy days upon it, for you will be destroyed. Hashem will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where Hashem will lead you. There you will serve gods, the handiwork of man, of wood and stone, which do not see, and do not hear, and do not eat, and do not smell. From there you will seek Hashem, your God, and you will find Him, if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul. When you are in distress and all these things have befallen you, at the end of days, you will return unto Hashem, your God, and hearken to His voice. For Hashem, your God, is a merciful God, He will not abandon you nor destroy you, and He will not forget the covenant of your forefathers that He swore to them. For inquire now regarding the early days that preceded you, from the day when Hashem created man on the earth, and from one end of heaven to the other end of heaven: Has there ever been anything like this great thing or has anything like it been heard? Has a people ever heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fire as you have heard and survived? Or has any god ever miraculously come to take for himself a nation from amidst a nation, with challenges, with sings, and with wonders, and with war, and with a strong hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with greatly awesome deeds, such as everything that Hashem, your God, did for you in Egypt before your eyes? You have been shown in order to know that Hashem, He is the God! There is none beside Him! From heaven He caused you to hear His voice in order to teach you, and on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words from the midst of the fire, because He loved your forefathers, and He chose his offspring after him, and took you out before Himself with His great strength from Egypt; to drive away before you nations that are greater and mightier than you, to bring you, to give you their land as an inheritance, as this very day. You shall know this day and take to your heart that Hashem, He is the God - in heaven above and on the earth below - there is none other. You shall observe His decrees and His commandments that I command you this day, so that He will do good to you and to your children after you, and so that you will prolong your days on the Land that Hashem, your God, gives you, for all the days. 

Nothing can substitute for the value of an initial reading. I used to be lazy and skim, but I now recognize that a slow and careful reading is the only way to really understand what the Torah is saying. I have found it helps to read it through several times, just to get a feel for the flow and to let the contents roll around in your mind.

Second Set of Readings: Noticing Themes

As I read through this several times, I began to notice some distinct themes. By my count, there are seven:

1. Shmiras ha'Mitzvos: exhortations to keep the mitzvos and explanations of their character
2. Eretz Yisrael: possessing the Land, living in the Land, and being exiled from the Land
3. Yesodei ha'Torah: reinforcing true ideas about Hashem and uprooting Avodah zarah
4. Ahm ha'Nivchar: Hashem's relationship with Bnei Yisrael and the Avos
5. Maamad Har Sinai: the Revelation at Sinai and its importance
6. Yetzias Mitzrayim: the significance of the events
7. Teshuvah: describing and predicting Bnei Yisrael's eventual teshuvah

Having said that, here is the entire excerpt again - this time, with the themes color-coded (based on the above scheme), and the text broken up into smaller paragraphs based on . 

Now, O Israel, listen to the decrees and to the ordinances that I teach you to perform, so that you may live, and you will come and possess the Land that Hashem, the God of your forefathers, gives you. You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor shall you subtract from it, to observe the commandments of Hashem, your God, that I command you. Your eyes have seen what Hashem did with Baal-peor, for every man that followed Baal-peor - Hashem, your God, destroyed him from your midst. But you who cling to Hashem, your God - you are all alive today.  See I have taught you decrees and ordinances, as Hashem, my God, has commanded me, to do so in the midst of the Land to which you come, to possess it. You shall safeguard and perform them, for it is your wisdom and discernment in the eyes of the peoples, who shall hear all these decrees and who shall say, "Surely a wise and discerning people is this great nation!" For which is a great nation that has a God Who is close to it, as is Hashem, our God, whenever we call to Him? And which is a great nation that has righteous decrees and ordinances, such as this entire Torah that I place before you this day?  

Only beware for yourself and greatly beware for your soul, lest you forget the things that your eyes have beheld and lest you remove them from your hear all the days of your life, and make them known to your children and your children's children - the day that you stood before Hashem, your God, at Horeb, when Hashem said to me, "Gather the people to Me and I shall let them hear My words, so that they shall learn to fear Me all the days that they live on the earth, and they shall teach their children." So you approached and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain was burning with fire up to the heart of heaven, darkness, cloud, and thick cloud. Hashem spoke to you from the midst of the fire; you were hearing the sound of words, but you were not seeing a form, only a sound. He told you of His covenant that He commanded you to observe, the Ten Declarations, and He inscribed them on two stone Tablets. Hashem commanded me at that time to teach you decrees and ordinances, that you shall perform them in the Land to which you cross, to possess it.  But you shall greatly beware for your souls, for you did not see any likeness on the day Hashem spoke to you at Horeb, from the midst of the fire, lest you act corruptly and make yourselves a carved image, a likeness of any shape; a form of a male or a female; a form of any animal on the earth; a form of any winged bird that flies in the heaven; a form of anything that creeps on the ground, a form of any fish that is in the water under the earth; and lest you raise your eyes to heaven and you see the sun, and the moon, and the stars - the entire legion of heaven - and you be drawn away and bow to them and worship them, which Hashem, your God, has apportioned to all the peoples under the entire heaven! But Hashem has taken you and withdrawn you from the iron crucible, from Egypt, to be a nation of heritage for Him, as this very day.  Hashem became angry with me because of you, and He swore that I would not cross the Jordan and not come to the good Land that Hashem, your God, gives you as a heritage. For I will die in this land; I am not crossing the Jordan - but you are crossing and you shall possess this good Land. Beware for yourselves lest you forget the covenant of Hashem, your God, that He has sealed with you, and you make yourselves a carved image, a likeness of anything, as Hashem, your God, has commanded you. For Hashem, your God - He is a consuming fire - a jealous God. 

When you beget children and grandchildren and will have been long in the Land, you will grow corrupt and make a carved image of anything, and you will do evil in the eyes of Hashem, your God, to anger Him. I appoint heaven and earth this day to bear witness against you that you will surely perish quickly from the Land to which you are crossing the Jordan to possess; you shall not have lengthy days upon it, for you will be destroyed. Hashem will scatter you among the peoples, and you will be left few in number among the nations where Hashem will lead you. There you will serve gods, the handiwork of man, of wood and stone, which do not see, and do not hear, and do not eat, and do not smell.From there you will seek Hashem, your God, and you will find Him, if you search for Him with all your heart and all your soul. When you are in distress and all these things have befallen you, at the end of days, you will return unto Hashem, your God, and hearken to His voice. For Hashem, your God, is a merciful God, He will not abandon you nor destroy you, and He will not forget the covenant of your forefathers that He swore to them.  

For inquire now regarding the early days that preceded you, from the day when Hashem created man on the earth, and from one end of heaven to the other end of heaven: Has there ever been anything like this great thing or has anything like it been heard? Has a people ever heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fire as you have heard and survived? Or has any god ever miraculously come to take for himself a nation from amidst a nation, with challenges, with sings, and with wonders, and with war, and with a strong hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with greatly awesome deeds, such as everything that Hashem, your God, did for you in Egypt before your eyes? You have been shown in order to know that Hashem, He is the God! There is none beside Him! From heaven He caused you to hear His voice in order to teach you, and on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words from the midst of the fire, because He loved your forefathers, and He chose his offspring after him, and took you out before Himself with His great strength from Egypt; to drive away before you nations that are greater and mightier than you, to bring you, to give you their land as an inheritance, as this very day. You shall know this day and take to your heart that Hashem, He is the God - in heaven above and on the earth below - there is none other. You shall observe His decrees and His commandments that I command you this day, so that He will do good to you and to your children after you, and so that you will prolong your days on the Land that Hashem, your God, gives you, for all the days. 

I'm sure my breakdown of the themes is arguable, as is my highlighting of the text. That doesn't really matter. The main thing is to notice that there are definitely some major themes going on here.

Third Set of Readings: Getting the Flow

In order to solidify the flow in my mind, I decided to write my own summary:

Keep the mitzvos of Hashem, without adding or subtracting, so that you may live. Your observance of the mitzvos will cause you to inherit the Land that He gives you. There you will be viewed as a wise, understanding, and righteous nation who is close to God.

Do not forget, nor let your children forget, the Revelation at Sinai. Hashem spoke to the entire nation in order that they may fear Him for all generations. The entire nation heard Him speak, but saw no image. He sealed the covenant of the Ten Declarations with them and He gave them His mitzvos to observe in the Land. Beware, for you did not see any likeness, nor may you make images of any created being. I will not be crossing over into the Land with you. Beware lest you forget Hashem's covenant and make carved images.

When you have been in the Land for many generations, you will grow corrupt and you will make carved images to anger Hashem. He will drive you out from the Land and scatter you among the nations, where you will worship other gods. From there you will seek Hashem and return to Him. He will not abandon you nor destroy you, nor will He forget the covenant He made with your forefathers.

Inquire about the singular events in your history: the Revelation at Sinai and Exodus from Egypt, which demonstrate the Truth and Uniqueness of Hashem's Existence, as well as His relationship to your forefathers and their offspring. Keep His mitzvos so that He will grant you and your children a good life in the Land that He gives you.

Those are the basics.

Fourth Set of Readings: Initial Observations

I knew that the first Mikdash was destroyed because of avodah zarah, but I always assumed that the avodah zarah epidemic had its roots in the stereotypical cause: Bnei Yisrael being enticed to worship elohim acherim and avodah zarah like the goyim. According to these pesukim, it seems that this was not the case.

Moshe Rabbeinu begins by presenting the ideal shmiras ha'mitzvos: keeping the entire Torah, without adding or subtracting, in a manner of wisdom and understanding - to the extent that the goyim around us see us as a wise and understanding nation with a close relationship to God, founded on righteous decrees and ordinances. That is the ideal that we, as a nation, are striving (or ought to be striving) to achieve.

Now, where does that go wrong? The answer lies in Moshe Rabbeinu's warning. Here he does not warn Bnei Yisrael against being drawn into the worship of elohim acherim, or even the practice of avodah zarah. Rather, he warns them not to forget the Revelation at Sinai, and to teach the principles of Sinai to their children and grandchildren. Moshe helps us out by specifying the key elements of the event. He begins with the fact that the entire nation gathered at Sinai to hear the word of Hashem. He then states the purpose of this national revelation, which is to instill yiras Hashem which will be perpetuated for all generations. Next, he reviews the particulars of the event: what they perceived (fire, darkness, cloud, thick cloud, the sound of words), what they didn't perceive (an image), and what they received (the covenant of the Ten Declarations, the stone tablets, and the mitzvos to observe in the land).

Then Moshe takes a curious turn. He goes into great deal warning the Jews not to erroneously believe that they saw a likeness at Sinai. He then warns them regarding (again, not about the actual worship of avodah zarah, but) the prohibition to make carved images of any created being - not only the terrestrial beings, but the heavenly bodies as well. Moshe reminds them that he will not be crossing over into Israel with them, and - presumably for this very reason - they must be extra careful to keep the covenant of the Ten Declarations and to not make any carved images (again, the emphasis on carved images, as opposed to actual worship of avodah zarah).

Now Moshe prophesies what will happen to them after many generations. Guess which sin they will stumble in? Again, not actual avodah zarah, but making a carved image. This will cause them to be exiled from the Land and scattered among the other nations. It is at this point where Moshe says that the Jews will worship man-made elohim.

All of a sudden, BAM: teshuvah. Without any real explanation as to the cause, Moshe Rabbeinu says that "from there" - that is, from our place in exile, steeped in avodah zarah, amid distress and destruction - we will seek out Hashem and find Him, if we seek with all of our heart and all of our soul. Hashem will have mercy on us and not abandon us, nor will He forget the covenant He made with the Avos.

In his conclusion, Moshe Rabbeinu goes back to Sinai. He urges Bnei Yisrael to investigate the events of Maamad Har Sinai and Yetzias Mitzrayim as the basis for establishing our conviction in the Truth of Hashem's Existence, our rejection of avodah zarah, and our shmiras ha'mitzvos which will bring us good, long life in the Land which He gives us.

In other words, it seems that everything comes back to Sinai. If we are careful not to forget Sinai, we will succeed in keeping the mitzvos in the ideal manner, as described at the beginning of the speech. But if we do forget Sinai, the first thing that goes will be our concept of Hashem. We will associate Him (in some way) with a physical likeness. This will lead to us making carved images, and (presumably) incorporating these images into our worship. As a result of this, Hashem will exile us and scatter us among the goyim, where we will pick up hardcore avodah zarah habits and bring upon ourselves a whole host of bad things. From there,  we will somehow do teshuvah. Moshe ends his speech by urging the present generation to brush up on the principles of Sinai (and yetzias mitzrayim) and make sure that our yesodei ha'Torah are solid.

Questions

This leaves me with several questions, which I'll ask in a crude form now and which I may reformulate later:

1. What causes us to "forget" Sinai?
2. Why is associating a physical likeness with Hashem the first symptom (or step) of our downfall?
3. What are the premises and implications of making carved images?
4. What type of yiras Hashem was Maamad Har Sinai intended to instill, and how does that give way to the aforementioned mistakes? 
5. How will we seek out Hashem "from there"? What will cause us to do so? How will we be able to do so, considering the dire circumstances? 
6. Practically speaking, what is the proper manner of relating to the events at Sinai which would prevent us from getting into this whole mess?
7. What does all of this have to do with the theme of Tishah b'Av?

Yeah, so it's now 2:24am. I can tell by the sloppiness (and probably incompleteness) of my questions that it's time for me to go to sleep. Perhaps I'll continue working on this tomorrow. If not, at least I got it all down in writing so that we can pick up on it sometime in the future.

"Uncle Steve" - by Jonathan Sassoon

Rabbi and Mrs. Moskowitz asked me to post this short essay about Shmully, written by Jonathan Sassoon for his 9th grade Language Arts class. The Sassoons were very close with Shmully. Jonathan's mother considered Shmully to be like a brother - hence, the nickname "Uncle Steve." This essay shows the lighter side of Shmully and captures memories from when he would frequent their home.

Jonathan S.

Language arts I-A

Description of uncle Steve

10/3/10

Uncle Steve

            Standing next to the open kitchen refrigerator is my very lovable uncle Steve. He is wearing the familiar faded dark green T-shirt with his flimsy, black sunglasses in his breast pocket. His worn out black baggy sweatpants are mud stained from his nightly treks in the woods. Uncle Steve’s brown boots have left a trail of dirt, leading from the front door straight to the refrigerator.

The stench of alcohol and cigarettes radiated off of him, emitting the smell of an old bar. His wavy salt and pepper hair lay matted on the top of his tired and unshaven face. Wide-eyed, yet not fully aware of his surroundings, he looks very animated and excited. It is a very recognizable look, one he wears when he is about to share a funny, (often crazy) yet true observation.

Clearing his phlegm filled throat, uncle Steve reaches for the long, stainless steel handle of the sub-zero refrigerator. The sudden light of the refrigerator stuns him briefly. He quickly recovers from the shock and begins his ransack of the refrigerator. Uncle Steve shouts in his deep and demanding voice, “Is there any good food in here? All you have in here is meat; you know I won’t eat anything I can become friends with.” He interrupts himself with his own excitement about his great find, “Ooh some humus, cheese, and some bread! I can make an un-believable sandwich!” Uncle Steve declared over excitedly. “It’s a real Mediterranean meal, reminds me of when I was in Israel and all I ate was olives and avocado!” 

As he munches on his sandwiches his head bobs with joy. His wide smile beams as the crumbs spill from his mouth and land on his beard. He is quite pleased with his culinary creation. Uncle Steve doesn’t bother to get a plate. That would mean exerting more energy than necessary. Silverware is rarely a need for uncle Steve. Fingers work just fine for spreading and grabbing food. 

Naturally, my siblings and I immediately break out in laughter at the sight of this chubby, pseudo mountain man. “What’s so funny?” he asks with a smirk. I smile and say sarcastically, “Tell me more about how you could possibly be friends with a cow.” “The cow is easy to be friends with,” he softly explains, “the fish is where it gets difficult.” By now my siblings and I are convulsing with laughter. “I feel more of a connection to cows and dogs, then I do towards people. People can be such low lives, especially lawyers; they’re the scum of the earth.” 

            Uncle Steve reaches down to pet my dog, kisses him on the head, and says lovingly, “ You’re the most perfect creature in the whole world. When I die I want to come back as one of you!” With that proclamation, he grabs our cheeks in his strong hands, kisses our faces, places his dirty sunglasses over his eyes while heading for the front door and says with a twang, “Y’all be cool.”

Hesped (Eulogy) of Shmully Moskowitz

Click on this link (or this link) for the mp3 recording of the hespedim given at Shmully Moskowitz's funeral.

Shmully Moskowitz on Purim of 1983

The Moskowitz's expressed their appreciation for the stories and memories people have shared in the comments on the post In Memory of Shmully Moskowitz. Please continue to do so either there or here, and I will print out the comments and give them to the Moskowitz's.

Addendum: Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 5:9

Review 

Last month I wrote a post entitled "Is shomer negiah chayav misah?!" or "How to Determine the Severity of an Aveirah." In this post I criticized the teacher of a visiting student for allegedly claiming that the violation of “shomer negiah” is chayav misah (liable for the death penalty).

I then presented the Rambam’s method of determining the severity of an aveirah, based on Avos 2:1. According to the Rambam, the halachic severity of an aveirah be inferred from its Torah-mandated onesh (penalty), regardless of whether that onesh is implemented in the present era. The Rambam lists eight levels of severity, ranging from most to least severe: the four types of misas beis dein (capital punishment) – in the order of skilah (stoning), sreifah (esophageal burning), hereg (decapitation), and chenek (strangulation) – followed by kareis (spiritual excision), then misah b’ydei shamayim (death at the hands of heaven), then malkos (lashes), and last, the transgressions for which the Torah does not administer an onesh, most of which are chayav makas mardus (liable for Rabbinic-level lashes).

I concluded the post by explaining that according to the Rambam, “shomer negiah” falls under the lo taaseh of lo tikrevu le'galos ervah (i.e. do not engage in the type of act which accompanies or leads to prohibited sexual relations). Lo tikrevu is chayav malkos, which means that the violation of "shomer negiah" falls under Level #7 in the Torah's hierarchy of halachic penalties. Thus, the teacher’s statement that "shomer negiah" is chayav misah was not only factually inaccurate, but falsely implied that the violation of this prohibition is regarded as more severe than it actually is.

The Question

A number of commenters challenged my conclusion about the severity of "shomer negiah" based on the Rambam’s ruling in Hilchos Yesodei ha’Torah 5:9. One commenter summarized this halacha and expressed his question as follows:

The Rambam seems to hold you should die rather than speak to a girl through a barrier (even if the woman is unmarried) lest immodesty become the norm among the daughter of Israel. Seems like negiah is not an aveirah that is simply malkus but has consequences in the Halachik system that makes it much more severe closer in some respects to misah that makes it "yahareg vaal yaavor" (i.e. that a person should give up his life rather than transgress the prohibition).

Another commenter echoed this sentiment, saying, "I looked at the Rambam myself and also find it extremely harsh...I agree there is reason to be concerned but the Rambam seems to go a little overboard here...(better to die than speak to a girl through a fence?)." A third commenter agreed.

I briefly addressed these objections in the comments, but my answer was (apparently) not satisfactory. After doing some thinking and research on the issue, I decided that this question deserves its own post. The post ended up being rather long, since I wanted to be as comprehensive as possible.

My Basic Approach to the Answer

My basic answer is quite simple: the objection raised by these commenters is based on a gross misreading of Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 5:9. The only remedy is a correct reading of the halacha. In this post I intend to provide such a reading, thereby undermining the implications which the aforementioned commenters found so troubling. 

There are two important rules of thumb when learning the Rambam’s Mishneh Torah: context and careful reading. Every halacha codified by the Rambam was written in its place for a reason. If you neglect the context, you run the risk of misunderstanding the halacha. In my opinion, this is exactly what happened here. 

Likewise, the Rambam formulated each and every halacha with the utmost level of clarity and precision. For this reason, it is especially important to read the text very carefully. I believe that these commenters did not read the Rambam carefully, as is evidenced by their summary of what they believe the Rambam said. 

In this post I will present Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 5:9 in its proper context. I will do this by summarizing all of the halachos leading up to Halacha 9. I will then endeavor to explicate exactly where the commenters erred in their understanding. I will conclude with a summary.

The Context: Kidush ha'Shem and Chilul ha'Shem

In order to understand Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 5:9 in its proper context, the first point we need to recognize is the subject of the chapter. Chapter 5 of Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah is about two mitzvos: Kidush ha’Shem (Sanctification of the Name), as it is stated: “And I will be sanctified amidst the Children of Israel” (Vayikra 22:32), and Chilul ha’Shem (Desecration of the Name), as it is stated: “And you shall not desecrate My holy Name” (ibid.).

The Rambam begins (5:1) with the primary scenario in which these two mitzvos apply, namely, a situation of oneis (coercion) by a goy to violate halacha under the threat of death. The basic halacha is as follows: if a goy tells a Jew to violate halacha (yaavor) or be killed (yehareg), then the Jew is obligated to transgress and not be killed (yaavor ve'al yehareg), as it is stated regarding the mtizvos, "that a person should do them and live by them" (Vayikra 18:5) - and not that he should die by them.

In Halacha 5:2 the Rambam adds a major qualification: the aforementioned din of yaavor ve'al yehareg  applies to all mitzvos with the exception of (what I will refer to as) The Big Three: avodah zarah (idolatry), gilui arayos (which, for the time being, we will translate as "prohibited sexual relations"), and shfichus damim (murder). If a goy threatens to kill a Jew unless he violates a mitzvah which falls under one of these three categories, the Jew is obligated to be killed rather than transgress (yehareg ve'al yaavor).

The Rambam then goes on (5:3) to specify a number of other conditions for yaavor ve'al yehareg and yehareg ve'al yaavor. Although these halachos are extremely important, they will distract us from our immediate objectives. For this reason, I will not cite their translations here. Feel free to read them at your leisure here.

The Rambam continues (5:4) and spells out the ramifications of complying or failing to comply with these halachos. If the Jew complies with this halacha and allows himself to be killed rather than transgress, then he has sanctified God's Name. If he fails to comply with this halacha and transgresses rather than allowing himself to be killed, then he has desecrated God's Name. However, since his violation of halacha was oneis (coerced), then he does not receive any onesh from Beis Din. For example, if a goy forced a Jew to commit adultery or be killed, and the Jew acted incorrectly and transgressed, then even though he violated the lo taaseh of chilul ha'Shem and the lo taaseh of eishes ish (adultery), which is chayav chenek, he would nevertheless be exempt from onesh, since he acted b'oneis.

The Rambam (5:5) concludes this portion of the discussion by addressing a specific scenario in which the goy says to a group of Jews, "Give me one of you to rape/kill, or I will rape/kill all of you." The halacha states that we should allow the goy to rape/kill the entire group rather than give over even one Jewish life.

Next (5:6), the Rambam switches gears from a situation of oneis by goy to the situation of oneis by a life-threatening illness. The same principle applies here: one may transgress all mitzvos in order to save a person from a life-threatening illness - all mitzvos except for The Big Three: avodah zarah, gilui arayos, and shfichus damim. However, unlike the case of oneis by goy, in which the unlawful transgressor is exempt from onesh, one who violates halacha in a situation of oneis by life-threatening illness is not exempt from onesh. Thus, if the only way for a Jew to be healed from a life-threatening illness was to commit adultery, and he acted incorrectly and transgressed, he would be chayav chenek.

The Rambam (5:7) explains that requirement to give up one's life in this situation is derived from the pasuk: "And you shall love Hashem, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your resources" (Devarim 6:5) - even if He takes your soul. In other words, the act of surrendering to a life-threatening illness rather than transgress one of The Big Three is a demonstration of ahavas Hashem (love of God).

The Rambam (5:8) then goes back and discusses the permissibility of violating halacha in the case of non-lethal illnesses. The general principle (which has a few exceptions) is that if the method of healing involves a non-enjoyable method of consuming a prohibited substance (e.g. taking a bitter tasting medicine made from non-kosher ingredients), then the cure may be administered even in cases of non-life-threatening illnesses.

Careful Reading of Halacha 5:9 in Context

It is in the midst of this highly specific context – namely, the part of Chapter 5 (i.e. the chapter of kidush ha'Shem) which deals with the permissibility of violating halacha situations of illness – that we arrive at our halacha. Here is a full translation of the Rambam's halacha. Pay close attention.

5:9 – If someone was attracted to a certain woman and is [love-]sick to the point where he is in danger of dying, and the doctors say that his only cure is for her to have intercourse with him, then we do not instruct him to do this – even if she is unmarried, and even to speak with her from behind a partition; and he should die rather than be instructed to speak with her from behind a partition, in order that the daughters of Israel should not become lewd, and so that these matters do not [ultimately] lead to promiscuity in arayos.

Now, compare this to the summaries provided by the commenters who were bothered by the halacha:

"The Rambam seems to hold you should die rather than speak to a girl through a barrier (even if the woman is unmarried) lest immodesty become the norm among the daughter of Israel" 

"the Rambam seems to go a little overboard here...(better to die than speak to a girl through a fence?" 

Do you see what I mean? These summaries are flagrant in their inaccuracy and distort the Rambam's position in numerous ways - six ways, to be exact. I will now spell out each one of these distortions in clear detail. I maintain that each one of these distortions, on its own, undermines the basis of the commenters questions - and all the more so when all of these distortions are considered together. Here they are:

#1: General Principle vs. Specific Case

These commenters read the Rambam as stating a general principle (i.e. that it is better to die than to speak to a girl through a partition). In truth, however, this halacha addresses a very specific situation: a man is so lovesick on account of a particular woman that he becomes ill to the point of death, and the only medically prescribed cure is for him to have sexual relations with that particular woman.

It is clear from the content and context that this halacha deals with a particular application within the general category of oneis choli ("coercion" by threat of illness). The Rambam began by discussing the permissibility of violating halacha in a case of oneis by goy, then moved on to discuss the permissibility of violating halacha in a case of oneis by a life-threatening illness, then discussed the application of those principles to cases of non-threatening illness, and concluded his discussion by addressing the anomalous case of terminal love-sickness. There are simply no grounds for extrapolating from this halacha to all cases of interactions between men and women, as the commenters did in their summaries.

This point is even clearer when we consider the source for the Rambam's halacha. The Gemara in Sanhedrin 75a states: 

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: There was once a case in which a certain man was attracted to a certain woman, and his heart was seized by lust. When the doctors were consulted, they said, “His only remedy is for her to have intercourse with him (lit. “sexually submit herself to him”). The Sages said, “Let him die, and she should not have intercourse with him.” The doctors said, “Let her stand naked before him.” The Sages said, “Let him die, and she should not stand naked before him.” The doctors said, “She should speak with him from behind a partition.” The Sages said, “Let him die, and she should not speak with him from behind a partition.”  

Rebbi Yaakov bar Idi and Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini disputed [about the facts of this case]: one said that she was a married woman, and the other said she was unmarried. According to the one who said she was a married woman, this makes sense, but according to the one who said she was unmarried, what’s the big deal? Rav Papa said: because of the disgrace to her family. Rav Acha brei d’Rav Ika said: so that the daughters of Israel should not become promiscuous in arayos [Rashi: by standing before men to arouse attraction, thereby allowing themselves to be given over to them for sexual intercourse].

[The Gemara objects:] Then let him marry her! [The Gemara answers:] His passion would not abate [through marriage,] as Rav Yitzchak said: Since the Beis ha’Mikdash was destroyed, sexual pleasure was taken [from those who practice it lawfully] and given to sinners, as it is stated, “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant” (Mishlei 9:17).

It is clear from the Gemara that this entire halacha pertains to the very specific situation of a man who is on the verge of dying from a broken heart, and the doctors tell him that the only cure is for him to have intercourse with the particular woman who is the object of his lust (and, failing that, to gaze at her naked, or at least speak with her from behind a partition).

In this situation of the choleh (sick person), and in this situation only, does the Rambam rule that he should die rather than even be instructed to speak with her from behind a partition. The Rambam does not maintain "that you should die rather than speak to a girl through a barrier" in general. (If there were such a prohibition, the Rambam would specify it in Hilchos Issurei Biah Chapter 21 . . . we'll return to that point later.)

#2: De'Oraisa vs. De'Rabbanan

The commenters read the Rambam as stating a halacha de'oraisa (i.e. that speaking to a woman behind a partition is yehareg ve'al yaavor, just as avodah zarah and shfichus damim are yehareg ve'al yaavor). This is not true.

If this were the case, the Rambam would simply write "he should die rather than be instructed to speak with her from behind a partition" - period. This would imply that the halacha is intrinsic to the de'oraisa system of kidush ha'Shem and chilul ha'Shem, just like the other instances of yehareg ve'al yaavor which the Rambam dealt with earlier in the chapter. But that's not what the Rambam wrote here. He provided two extrinsic reasons for why the choleh should be allowed to die: 

. . . he should die rather than be instructed to speak with her from behind a partition, in order that the daughters of Israel should not become lewd, and so that these matters do not [ultimately] lead to promiscuity in arayos.

It is clear that this is not a de'oraisa application of kidush/chilul ha'Shem. Rather, it is a gezeirah de'rabbanan which was instituted as a syag (fence) to obviate a potential arayos outbreak in klal Yisrael.  The Rambam phrases his halacha as "she'lo y'hu bnos Yisrael hefker etc." in the same manner that Chazal frame all such gezeiros.

That this din is a gezeirah de'rabbanan is even clearer when you consider the other position mentioned in the original Gemara: 

Rebbi Yaakov bar Idi and Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini disputed [about the facts of this case]: one said that she was a married woman, and the other said she was unmarried. According to the one who said she was a married woman, this makes sense, but according to the one who said she was unmarried, what’s the big deal? Rav Papa said: because of the disgrace to her family. Rav Acha brei d’Rav Ika said: so that the daughters of Israel should not become promiscuous in arayos.

If this were really a de'oraisa case of yehareg ve'al yaavor, there would be no need to provide an external reason - especially a reason the likes of "because of the disgrace to her family." Thus, it is clear from the formulation of Rambam's halacha and the original Gemara that this din is a gezeirah which was instituted to preclude a specific takalah (hazard), rather than an application of the de'oraisa din yehareg ve'al yaavor of kidush ha'Shem.

#3: Gezeirah on Beis Din vs. Gezeirah on the Choleh  

Take a careful look at how the Rambam formulates the halacha:

5:9 – If someone was attracted to a certain woman and is [love-]sick to the point where he is in danger of dying, and the doctors say that his only cure is for her to have intercourse with him, then we do not instruct him to do this – even if she is unmarried, and even to speak with her from behind a partition; and he should die rather than be instructed to speak with her from behind a partition, in order that the daughters of Israel should not become lewd, and so that these matters do not [ultimately] lead to promiscuity in arayos.

According to the Rambam, this is really a halacha for Beis Din, not for the choleh. In other words, when Chazal made this syag, they were gozer on Beis Din's horaah (instruction/psak) - not on the conduct of the choleh himself. This reading of the Rambam is also mentioned as a possibility by several commentaries on the Rambam (see, for instance, Divrei Yirmiyahu and Avodas ha'Melech on our halacha).

Indeed, if you do a search in the Mishneh Torah for the phrase "ein morin lo" ("we do not instruct him"), you'll find 11 instances. In all of these instances, the Rambam is referring to a situation in which the halacha is one way, but Beis Din is restricted from instructing others to act in accordance with the halacha - even though that action is permissible, or in some cases, a mitzvah. This instance of "ein morin lo" is no different: our halacha is not restricting the action of the choleh, but the action of Beis Din.

The nafkah minah (practical ramification) of this is huge. According to the Rambam, if you are lovesick to the point where the only remedy is for you to speak with a woman behind a partition, only Beis Din is prohibited from instructing you to do so, but if you acted that way on your own, you would not be in violation of any issur. The truth of this point is apparent when we consider the next point.

#4: Arayos vs. Other Issurei Biah

As a general rule, the Rambam says what he means and means what he says, and he almost always defines his terms. In Hilchos Ishus 1:5 the Rambam defines exactly what is meant by the term "arayos":

Any individual with whom the Torah prohibits sexual relations which chayav kareis - and these are the ones mentioned in Parashas Acharei Mos - these are called arayos, and each of these individuals is referred to as "ervah" (e.g. a mother, a sister, a daughter, etc.). 

In addition to arayos, there are a number of other issurei biah (sexual prohibitions which are not stated in parashas acharei mos and are not chayav kareis), such as the prohibition for a Jew to have marital intercourse with a non-Jew, the prohibition for a Jew to have intercourse with a mamzer, the prohibitions for a kohen to have intercourse with a divorcee, the prohibition for a native-born Jewish woman to have intercourse with a sris (a man with crushed genitals), and others. Most of these are chayav malkos, and none of them are mentioned in Parashas Acharei Mos.

There are also two mitzvos lo taaseh which the Rambam includes in Hilchos Issurei Biah, but which do not involve an actual maaseh biah (act of sexual intercourse), namely, the prohibition of yichud (seclusion with an ervah) and the prohibition of lo tikrevu le'galos ervah (actions which lead to issurei biah). These belong in Hilchos Issurei Biah because they lead to violations of issurei biah.

Throughout Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah Chapter 5 the Rambam repeatedly states that giluy arayos are yehareg ve'al yaavor. He does not state that all issurei biah (sexual prohibitions) are yehareg ve'al yaavor - and certainly not issurei de'oraisa which lead to issurei biah, or ervah de'rabbanan (see the Shach on Yoreh Deah 157 who writes, "it is obvious that ervah de'rabbanan is yaavor ve'al yehareg according to all opinions"). Rather, the Rambam maintains that all issurei biah which are not arayos fall into the category of shaar mitzvos, and by default are yaavor ve'al yehareg, not yehareg ve'al yaavor.

If the Rambam intended to include other issurei biah in the din yehareg ve'al yaavor of giluy arayos, he would have spelled that out in explicit terms - just like he does when he extends lo tikrevu from arayos to other chayavei lavin in Hilchos Issurei Biah 21:3, and when he extends (mi'de'rabbanan) the issur yichud to penuyah and goyah (ibid. 22:3). 

The greatest proof that the Rambam doesn't include all issurei biah in the din yehareg ve'al yaavor of giluy arayos is Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 5:3. Immediately after stating that giluy arayos are always yehareg ve'al yaavor, no matter what the circumstances or the motive, the Rambam goes on to qualify the din of yaavor ve'al yehareg. He explains that the din of yaavor ve'al yehareg by shaar mitzvos (i.e. not The Big Three) applies across the board if the goy is coercing the Jew to violate halacha for the goy's own hanaah (enjoyment). The Rambam then gives three examples of this case: (1) a goy who coerces a Jew to build him a house on Shabbos, (2) a goy who coerces a Jew to cook him a dish on Shabbos, and (3) a goy who coerces a Jewish woman to have sexual intercourse with him.

Think about this for a second. If you are going to claim that all issurim related to biah fall under the din yehareg ve'al yaavor of giluy arayos, then you'll have a very hard time explaining why coerced biah for the sake of pleasuring a non-Jew is yaavor ve'al yehareg. Not only that, but you'll have an even harder time explaining why a choleh should give up his life rather than speak to a woman behind a partition, and yet, Jewess can and should have actual sexual intercourse with a goy who coerces her to do so in order to satisfy his lust.

According to my reading, however, the Rambam is entirely consistent: biah with a non-Jew is yaavor ve'al yehareg is because it's not an issur of giluy arayos. (In fact, coerced biah with a non-Jew wouldn't even be an issur de'oraisa, since the de'oraisa only prohibits biah derech ishus - i.e. intercourse in the context of marriage - whereas biah derech znus is only assur mi'divrei sofrim.)

The same applies to the case of speaking to a woman behind a partition, which is not giluy arayos (since it is not chayav kareis), and doesn't even involve a maaseh biah. This point is strengthened by the next . . .

#5: Speaking with Women

Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 5:9 makes reference to four possible aveiros:

1. sexual intercourse with a married woman
2. sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman
3. speaking with a married woman behind a partition
4. speaking with an unmarried woman behind a partition

Let's go through each of these to determine its status. Sexual intercourse with an eishes ish (married woman) is most certainly giluy arayos, since it is a violation of the lo taaseh of eishes ish, which is chayav kareis and is mentioned in Parashas Acharei Mos. Sexual intercourse with a penuyah (unmarried woman), on the other hand, is not giluy arayos, since it is a violation of the lo taaseh of kadeishah, which is chayav malkos and is not mentioned in Parashas Acharei Mos. As such, biah with a penuyah would not automatically be yehareg ve'al yaavor.

As mentioned in the previous section, #3 and #4 are certainly not giluy arayos, since they aren't chayav kareis and don't even involve a maaseh biah. At worst, these actions are assur mi'de'oraisa; at best, they are completely mutar. How so? Because, generally speaking, the Rambam does not hold that there is no assur per se to speak with a woman, whether married or unmarried. The Rambam does not mention any such issur in the Mishneh Torah, nor (to my knowledge) in any of his other writings. Although this point is obvious, I will support it by citing the Chedvas Yaakov (Shu"t Even ha'Ezer 43) who writes:

Even according to the one who holds that this case deals with a married woman, it is impossible to find any reason as to why he should die rather than speak with her. What possible issur would he be violating if he spoke with her, even face to face, and certainly from behind a partition?! 

According to the Rambam, the only issur that he might possibly be violating in this context is lo tikrevu, as the Rambam writes in Hilchos Issurei Biah 21:3:

It is prohibited for a man to make motions with his hands or feet or wink with his eyes to one of the arayos [or to one of the chayavei lavin (as the Rambam states in the next halacha)], or to flirt or act frivolously with her. It is even forbidden to smell her perfume or gaze at her beauty. A person who performs any of these actions intentionally is given makas mardus (lashes, de'rabbanan). A person who stares at even a small finger of a woman with the intent of deriving pleasure is considered as if he looked at her genitalia. It is even forbidden to hear the voice of a woman forbidden as an ervah or to look at her hair.

That the Rambam does not mention "mere talking" as one of the prohibited actions. The only type of speech he mentions is flirting, which is of an overtly sexual character. This point is bolstered by the Rambam's commentary on Avos 1:9 in which he writes that excessive speech with women is assur because such speech will inevitably meander into sexual topics. Even then, he does not hold that it is assur because of any lo taaseh, but only because it leads to bad middos. It is "philosophically assur" - or, if you prefer, it is "assur" under the general mitzvah of ve'halachta bi'drachav, which commands us to develop good middos.

Nevertheless, one might be able to make an argument that if a person is so lovesick for a woman that he is in mortal peril unless he speaks with her, then perhaps this speech would fall under lo tikrevu. Still, it would certainly not constitute arayos and would not be yehareg ve'al yaavor.

I am aware that there are some Rishonim who maintain that even abizrayhu de'arayos (lit. "appurtenances of arayos") are included in the din of yehareg ve'al yaavor (see, for instance, the Chidushei ha'Ran on our Gemara). The category of abizrayhu de'arayos is inherently vague, and includes any actions which are thematically associated with arayos, whether de'oraisa, de'rabbanan, mishum minhag, or even actions which are not assur at all.

The Rambam does not agree with these Rishonim. He does't say anything about abizrayhu in the Mishneh Torah or anywhere else. Some want to say that the Rambam holds by this position, but as far as I'm concerned, there is no evidence for this. If he held by this position, which has such far-ranging implications, he would have written this explicitly.

#6: This is a Halacha of Kidush ha'Shem, not Issurei Biah

Let's pretend that I am wrong on all four of the preceding points. Let's pretend that Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 5:9 says that a regular man speaking with a woman behind a partition is assur and falls under the din of yehareg ve'al yaavor de'oraisa. Even if that were true (and it is most certainly not), then it still would not be evidence that shomer negiah is any more severe than indicated by its #7 chiyuv malkus ranking. Why not? Because this is a halacha in the kiddush ha'Shem, which is its own system, and carries its own implications.

Consider the following mashal. In 1968, Congress passed a Federal Flag Desecration Law which prohibited the act of burning a flag. Though illegal, the act of burning a flag was not a capital offense. Now, imagine a soldier who is captured by radical Islamic terrorists and forced under the penalty of death to burn an American flag, live on Al Jazeera. Let's say this soldier refused to burn the flag and allowed himself to be killed rather than comply. This would likely be viewed by Americans as an act of nationalism and loyalty to American values, and his death would be considered a form of martyrdom.

Even though the soldier's forfeited his life, the character of his death is completely different than that of a felon who is executed for a capital offense. Even though both involve the outcome of death, the latter reflects the severity of the felon's crime, whereas the former is an expression of allegiance to a set of values.

The same is true in our case. In the case of a Torah violation which is chayav misah, the chiyuv misah reflects the severity of the sin, as the Rambam explained in Avos 2:1. However, when an action falls under the din of yehareg ve'al yaavor in the system of Kidush ha'Shem, that does not indicate anything about the severity of the action. Rather, whenever an action is yehareg ve'al yaavor, it is an expression of devotion to Hashem and His Torah. It is a demonstrative act which proclaims that it is better to give up one's life than to renounce the core principles of Torah. This is the reason why, in the case of shmad (a government decree against Torah), every violation of halcha becomes yehareg ve'al yaavor. In such a scenario (e.g. the Inquisition, the events of Purim, Nazi Germany) every halachically significant action becomes representative of the entire Torah system.

The same is true in the case of Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 5:9. Why does the Rambam say that a choleh must give up his life rather than violate one of The Big Three? He explains this in Halacha 5:7:

5:7 – From where do we know that even in a place of life-threatening danger we do not violate one of these three [categories of] transgressions? As it is stated, “And you shall love Hashem, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your resources” (Devarim 6:5) – even if He takes your soul.

In other words, the din of yehareg ve'al yaavor in a case of a choleh doesn't imply anything about the inherent severity of the particular violation. Rather, it is an expression of ahavas Hashem (love of God) - a declaration that the core principles of the Torah system are more important than one's own life.

Thus, even if "shomer negiah" did fall under yehareg ve'al yaavor (which it does not), that would not imply anything about its severity.


Summary and Conclusion

The objective of this post was to refute the claim made by commenters that the Rambam holds that "you should die rather than speak to a girl through a barrier." These commenters inferred from their reading that the violation of lo tikrevu (a.k.a. "shomer negiah") also falls under the din of yehareg ve'al yaavor. For this reason, they felt that my reaction to that teacher's alleged statement that "shomer negiah is chayav misah" was not entirely incorrect.

It was my contention that these commenters have severely misunderstood the Rambam's position as a result of a grossly imprecise and out-of-context reading of Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 5:9. They made six major mistakes in their reading:

1. The Rambam's halacha pertains to a specific case of a man who has a lethal case of lovesickness for a certain woman; as such, these dinim cannot be generalized to other cases, and certainly not to all interactions between men and women.
   
2. This halacha is not an instance of yehareg ve'al yaavor de'oraisa, but is a gezeirah de'rabbanan which was instituted to preclude a specific takalah.
   
3. This halacha is not even addressed to the lovesick man himself, but to how the Beis Din instructs the man to act; if the man were to speak to the woman on his own, he would not be in violation of any prohibition.
   
4. Yehareg ve'al yaavor only applies to giluy arayos, not to all issurei biah, and certainly not to issurim which lead to issurei biah; thus, "shomer negiah" and is included in the category of shaar mitzvos rather than The Big Three, and as such, is not inherently yehareg ve'al yaavor.
   
5. Speaking to a woman behind a partition is certainly not yehareg ve'al yaavor because it isn't assur at all; and even if it were assur, it would not constitute arayos and would not be inherently yehareg ve'al yaavor.
   
6. Even if none of the aforementioned points were true, and speaking to a woman behind a partition was yehareg ve'al yaavor, that would not imply anything about the severity of "shomer negiah"; it would merely imply that in a scenario of Kidush ha'Shem, "shomer negiah" is an adequate vehicle to reflect one's dedication to ahavas Hashem over one's own life.

And that, my friends, is why I think the commenters read the Rambam wrong. Other Rishonim? Perhaps. But as far as the Rambam is concerned, I stand by what I wrote in my initial post. 

In Memory of Shmully Moskowitz

On July 1st of this year, just 17 days ago, I started working on a blog post. Here is how it began:

This morning we were informed that a member of our community had to be hospitalized for pneumonia. Thank God, they caught it in time and, as of this afternoon, the antibiotics appear to be working (though he's not out of the woods yet). 

I had forgotten that pneumonia could be fatal. According to the Wikipedia article, pneumonia was once regarded as "the captain of the men of death." Before antibiotics, the mortality rate was typically 30% for hospitalized patients. In the third world, pneumonia remains a leading cause of death.

I was referring to Shmully Moskowitz, the son of my rebbi, Rabbi Moskowitz. Rabbi and Mrs. Moskowitz are in their seventies, and Shmully recently turned 50 (I believe). He had just flown to New York for a wedding and was there when the pneumonia struck. When we heard that his parents flew to New York to be with him, we knew it was serious, but we didn't know how serious it was until we started receiving email updates from members of the community. For instance, three days after he was hospitalized we received an email update saying that "Shmuly is still in the ICU but he is now aware." And two days later: "the fluid in the lungs is less, and his kidneys are working. He still has a fever of 102."

At the end of last week, after spending many nerve-wracking days in the danger zone, Shmully was finally able to be weaned off of life support and to begin the road to recovery. The most recent email concluded by saying that "the particulars are not great but the over all picture is good." This was yesterday. 

Tonight, less than three hours ago, we received the terrible and shocking news that Shmully died . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shmully was the only child of my rebbi, my rav muvhak, to whom I owe my life. He had no siblings, no children, and was unmarried. He was "a lone and solitary man who has neither son nor brother . . . this, too, is a futility; indeed, it is a sorry task" (Koheles 4:8).

I did not know Shmully personally. What I did know of him was that he was regarded by everyone as a creative, humorous, fun-loving guy with many beloved friends . . . oh yeah, and he was an unparalleled genius. And I do not mean "genius" in the loose sense of the term, the way people use it today. He was a real genius, and unanimously hailed as such. According to local "yeshiva folklore," Shmully distinguished himself from an early age as a prodigy, and received semichah in his first year of yeshiva (citation needed - but I'm sure it's not far off from the truth). We heard tales of how he would take on the Rosh Yeshiva head to head, and often prevail. His abstract, independent-thinking mind was always eager to find new and fresh ways of thinking about the subject at hand, no matter what it might be. I did have the privilege of witnessing this firsthand on several occasions, and it was a wonder to behold. He had an energetic, boisterous, animated way of talking. Whenever I saw him talk, it was like watching Einstein cranked up on Starbucks combined with a Feynman-esque charm and casualness. Scratch that: it was uniquely Shmully. 

Although I never learned with Shmully in person, I know that my own development was greatly influenced by his thinking. Rabbi Moskowitz learned with Shmully all the time, and often quoted his son's ideas. Of course, Rabbi Moskowitz usually disagreed with Shmully's ideas, and would say so with no hesitation, but only after highlighting their noteworthy virtues and originality. It was in this manner that Shmully played a tremendous role in my own development, both directly (i.e. the ideas themselves) and indirectly (by what they yielded in playing counterpoint to my rebbi's ideas).

For that, I owe him my deepest gratitude. I only wish that I could have learned with him more . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What was I going to write about in the post I started? Well, as soon as I heard that Shmully had been hospitalized with a potentially fatal disease, I immediately thought of the halacha in Hilchos Avel (The Laws of a Mourner) 13:12:

Any person who does not mourn as the Sages commanded is achzari (lit. "cruel" or "indifferent"). Rather, he should be fearful and worried and should examine his deeds and return in teshuvah. If a member of one's chavurah (social group) dies, the entire chavurah should worry [in the aforementioned manner].  

For the first three days, one should see himself as though a sword is resting on his shoulder. From three days until seven days, [he should view it as though the sword is] waiting in the corner. From then and on, [he should view it as though the sword is] passing before him in the marketplace. All of this is so that a person should prepare himself to return [in teshuvah] and awaken from his slumber, for it is written, "You have stricken them, but they have not trembled" (Yirmiyahu 5:3). The implication is that one should awaken and tremble. 

At that time I thought to myself, "Even though Shmully is on the upswing, the underlying principle of this halacha still applies, even though the halacha itself is not relevant, thank God." How I wish I had not been wrong.

We are now faced with the situation described in the halacha. A member of our chavurah was stricken. Will we be cognizant of the sword? Will we prepare to return in teshuvah? Will we awaken from our slumber and tremble? I pray that we will, and that the Dayan ha'Emes will assist us, for I am fearful of my ability (and willingness) to do so on my own. 

My God, before I was fashioned I was unworthy, and now that I have been fashioned, it is as if I had not been fashioned. I am dust in my life and will surely be so in my death. Before You I am like a vessel filled with shame and humiliation. May it be Your will, Hashem, my God, and the God of my forefathers, that I not sin [again]. And what I have sinned before You, may You wipe away in Your abundant mercy, but not through suffering or serious illness (Tefilas Neilah).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shmully fell ill less than 20 days ago. I saw him in New York just a few days before that. Judging by appearances, he was as healthy as anybody else. Healthy, alive, and thinking. Always thinking.

And just like that, he is gone. 

My mind cannot help but turn to the words of Koheles (9:3-12), be they true or false. 

This is the worst of all the things that go on under the sun: that the same fate is in store for all. Then, too, men's hearts are full of evil, and there is madness in their hearts while they live; and after that - to the dead! For he who is counted with all the living still has hope - even a live dog is better than a dead lion - because the living know they will die. But the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, for all recollection of them is forgotten. Their love, their hate, their jealousy have long since perished, and for all eternity they will never again have a share in all that goes on under the sun.

Go, eat your bread with joy and drink your wine with gladness, for God has already approved your deeds. Let your clothes always be clean and your head never lack ointment. Enjoy life with the woman you love all the days of your fleeting existence which He has granted you under the sun - all the days of your futile existence. For that alone is your portion in life, and in all your labor under the sun. Whatever it is in your power to do, do with all your might. For there is neither action, nor accounting, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave, where you are heading. 

Once more I observed that under the sun the race is not won by the swift, nor the battle by the mighty; nor does bread come to the wise, nor wealth to the intelligent, nor favor to the learned. Yet time and death visit them all. And a man cannot even know his time. As fish are caught in a flimsy net, and as birds are trapped in a snare, so are men caught at a time of misfortune, when it befalls them without warning.

I will conclude this post by attempting to cast these thoughts in a framework which we know to be true, and which might help us to utilize this tragedy as a means for awakening ourselves to teshuvah. Here is Tehilim 90 in its entirety:

A prayer by Moshe, the man of God: O Lord. You have been an abode for us in all generations; before the mountains were born and You had not yet fashioned the earth and the inhabited land, and from the remotest past and to the most distant future, You are God. You reduce man to pulp and You say, "Repent, O sons of man." For even a thousand years in Your eyes are but a bygone yesterday, and like a watch in the night. You flood them away, they become sleeplike; by morning they are like grass that withers. In the morning it blossoms and is rejuvenated; by evening it is cut down and brittle. For we are consumed by Your anger; and we are confounded by Your wrath. You have set our iniquities before Yourself, our immaturity before the light of Your countenance. For all our days passed by because of Your fury, we consumed our years like a fleeting thought. The days of our years among them are seventy years, and if with might, eighty years; their proudest success is but toil and pain, for it is cut off swiftly and we fly away. Who knows the power of Your anger? As You are feared, so is Your fury. Teach us to count our days, then we shall acquire a heart of wisdom. Return, Hashem, until when? Relent concerning Your servants. Satisfy us in the morning with Your kindness, then we shall sing out and rejoice throughout our days. Gladden us according to the days You afflicted us, the years when we saw evil. May Your works be visible to Your servants, and Your majesty upon their children. May the pleasantness of the Lord, our God, be upon us; our handiwork, establish for us; our handiwork, establish it. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We will miss you, Shmully. 

לזכר נשמת שמואל זלמן בן מאיר
תהא נשמתו צרורה בצרור החיים

(Click here or here for an audio recording of the eulogies)