Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת עבודה זרה דף כ"ז, we will start 17 lines from the top of the עמוד. And the גמרא says here: איתמר, we learned, מניין למילה בעובדי כוכבים שפסולה? How do we know that if a גוי would perform the מצוה of מילה it would be פסול? And this is בהמשך to what we learned before that רבי יהודה הנשיא said that a גוי is not allowed to do the מצוה of מילה. So the גמרא brings here a מימרא, but how do we know that if a גוי performs the מצוה of מילה, it's פסול? דרו בר פפא משמיה דרב אמר, so דרו בר פפא said in the name of רב, because the פסוק says concerning to מילה, that השם said to אברהם אבינו: ואתה את בריתי תשמור, that you should watch, keep my covenant. And the פסוק continues, וזרעך אחריך, and to your children after you. So from here we know that who is able to do the מצוה of מילה? Only those that are מחוייב in the מצוה of מילה, the children of אברהם אבינו. But a

גוי, he is פסול to perform the מצוה of מילה. רבי יוחנן אמר, but רבי יוחנן said that he learns it out from a different פסוק. The פסוק says, המול ימול, that he should perform מילה, but the way the פסוק writes it, we could read not המול ימול, but המל ימול, which means to say, only someone who's גמול himself, he is able to perform the מצוה of מילה. But a גוי who is not גמול himself, so he cannot perform the מצוה of מילה. Then the גמרא asks: מאי בינייהו? What is the difference between these two reasons, whether the reason why we say a גוי is פסול for מילה is because we learn it out from the פסוק ואתה את בריתי תשמור, or we learn out from the פסוק המל ימול? So the גמרא says the difference between the two is ערבי מהול, if he's an Arab which is גמול himself, or גבעוני מהול, a גבעוני, which is another nation of גוים who is גמול himself, איכא בינייהו, that is the difference. Because מאן דאמר המל ימול, the one that says that the reason a גוי cannot do the מצוה of מילה because the פסוק says המל ימול, only the one that is גמול himself can do it, but a גוי who is not גמול can't, איכא, it is here, since these two nations perform the מצוה of מילה also, so they are גמול. So if this is the reason they can't, these people could. ומאן דאמר, and the one that says את בריתי תשמור, the reason a גוי cannot do מילה is because the פסוק says את בריתי תשמור, ליכא, there isn't. אביי, because even though they do the מילה, but they are not מחוייב to do the מילה, they are not included in the ברית of מילה, and therefore they wouldn't be able to do. So this is the difference between these two reasons. Then the גמרא asks, how can you say that this is the difference? והתנן,

didn't we learn in a משנה: If someone says, קונם שאני נהנה מן הערלים, the person אוסר's upon himself to have any use from ערלים, because the word קונם is a word in לשון קודש, which means that a person forbids upon himself to have any הנאה, if he says the לשון הנאה, or whatever לשון he uses. So when he says קונם שאני נהנה מן הערלים, it means that he אוסר's upon himself to have any use, any pleasure, any benefit from uncircumcised people, מותר בערלי ישראל, he's allowed to have benefit from an ערל who's a ייד, even though that ייד is not גמול, and he said that he will not have הנאה from any person who is not גמול, nevertheless, he's allowed to have הנאה from this ייד who's not גמול, ואסור במולי עובדי כוכבים, and he's not allowed to have any הנאה from even circumcised גוים. Even though he only said he's not going to have הנאה from ערלים, still, even if the גוי is גמול, he's not allowed to have any הנאה from him. אלמא, so we see, אף על גב דמהילו, even though these גוים are circumcised, כמאן דלא מהילי דמי, it's as if they are not גמול. From here we see that the word ערל refers to all גוים. Because they are not מחוייב to perform the מצוה of מילה, they are all called ערלים. On the other hand, all the יידן, even the ערל of a ייד, is also called a מהול. So, how can we say before that according to the one that says that the reason is because it says המול ימול, and from there we learn out המל ימול, that one that's גמול is able to give him to מול, and therefore we said that if a גוי is גמול he should be able to perform מילה, but here we see that even if a גוי is גמול, he's still considered as if he is not גמול? So even if we learn out from המול ימול, המל ימול, still a גוי shouldn't be able to perform מילה even if the גוי is גמול. אלא איכא בינייהו, therefore the גמרא says, what is the difference between these two reasons? ישראל שמתו אחיו מחמת מילה, that a ייד that his brothers died through the מילה, ולא מהלוהו, so therefore they didn't מול him. Because the דין is that if the earlier brothers, the first brothers, died because of the מילה, he is not מחוייב to have the מצוה of מילה. So in a case like that, למאן דאמר ואתה את בריתי תשמור, according to the one that says that why can't a גוי מל? Because the פסוק says ואתה את בריתי תשמור. איכא. In this case, there is. This ייד, even though he himself is not גמול'ט, but since he is a ייד, so he's included in the ברית of מילה. So therefore, he is able to perform the מצוה of מילה. ולמאן דאמר, but according to the one that gives the reason המול ימול, ליכא. Why? Because after all למעשה this ייד is not גמול'ט, and we learn out from the פסוק that only המול ימול, only one that's גמול'ט himself could do the מצוה of מילה. And that would be the reason the difference between these two reasons. But then the גמרא asks, ולמאן דאמר המול ימול ליכא, and now you're telling me that the one that gives the reason why a גוי can't perform מילה is because it says המול ימול, so in a case where a ייד is not גמול'ט, he cannot do it because he is not considered המול ימול? והתנן, didn't we learn, and it's the same משנה that we said before, קונם שאני נהנה מן המולים, that if a ייד says, "I אסר upon myself to have any הנאה from גמול'טע people," אסור בערלי ישראל, he's not allowed to have any הנאה from any יידן even if a ייד is not גמול'ט, ומותר במולי עובדי כוכבים, and he's allowed to have הנאה from גוים who are גמול'ט, even though he said, "I will not have הנאה from any person who is גמול'ט," but a גוי who is גמול'ט he's still allowed to have הנאה from him. And the reason is because all גוים are considered ערלים, and all יידן are considered here מולים. אלמא, we see that אף על גב דלא מהיל, that a ייד, even though he is not גמול'ט, כמאן דמהיל דמי, it's as if he is גמול'ט. And therefore, how can you say that if we learn המול ימול, a ייד who wasn't גמול'ט because his brother died מחמת מילה, he couldn't perform the מצוה of מילה, because he is not המול, he himself is not גמול'ט, but here we see that every ייד is considered גמול'ט? So we can't say that this would be the difference between these two reasons.

אלא איכא בינייהו, therefore you must say, what is the difference between these two reasons? אשה. A woman, whether a woman could perform the מצוה of מילה or not. למאן דאמר, according to the one that says that the reason why a גוי cannot do it is because ואתה את בריתי תשמור, ליכא. So by a woman also there isn't this ברית, because דאשה לאו בת מילה היא, because a woman is not included in מילה. She is not included in the ברית of מילה. And therefore, just like a גוי we said before cannot do the מילה because he's not included in the ברית, a woman also cannot do the מילה because she's also not included in the ברית of מילה. ולמאן דאמר המול ימול, but according to the one that says that we learn it out from the פסוק המול ימול, which means המול ימול, the one that's גמול'ט he is able to do the מילה, איכא, it is, a woman could do it, because דאשה כמאן דמהילא דמיא, because a woman is as if she's גמול'ט. Even though בגשמיות למעשה she's not גמול'ט, but it's as if she is גמול'ט. And therefore she is included in the לשון of המול ימול, which means המול ימול. But then the גמרא asks, ומי איכא למאן דאמר דאשה לא? Is there a מאן דאמר that says a woman cannot do מילה? We just said that whether a woman could do מילה or not depends on these two reasons, and according to one a woman could do מילה, and according to the other a woman couldn't. So how can there be בכלל the גמרא asks here a מאן דאמר that says that she couldn't?

והכתיב, doesn't it say בפירוש, ותקח צפורה צר, it says that when משה רבינו was on his way to מצרים, so on the way they stopped במלון, they stopped at an inn, and it says that it says a מלאך wanted to kill him. And צפורה, משה's wife, understood that the reason was because they didn't perform the מצוה of מילה with their son. So what did she do? She took a stone, and it says ותכרת, she cut off the ערלה of her son. So we see here clearly that צפורה performed the מצוה of מילה, so obviously a woman could do מילה. So how could there even be a מאן דאמר that would say that a woman cannot do מילה, when here we have a בפירוש'ע פסוק that a woman did do מילה? And the גמרא answers, קרי ביה ותקח. You read here not ותקח, but ותקח. ותקח means she took. She took the stone, and she did it. But if you say ותקח that means that she made taken. That means that she had someone else do it. It was because she told him to, but not that she did it, someone else did it. But then the גמרא asks, והכתיב, doesn't it say ותכרות, that she cut? And the גמרא answers the same thing: קרי ביה ותכרת, that she made cut. דאמרה, that she said, לאיניש אחרינא to somebody else, ועבד, and that somebody else did it. But it doesn't mean that she actually with her hands performed the מצוה of מילה. איבעית אימא, if we want I could answer you that the פשט is like this: אתיא איהי, she came, ואתחלה, she started, she started doing the מילה, ואתא משה ואגמרה, and then משה רבינו came and he finished it. So really the whole מצוה of מילה was done through משה, and why does it say that she took תוספות asks a קשיא here, לכתחילה בשעה דגמרא wants to prove from the דין of נדרים, that if a person says, "I make a נדר not to have any הנאה from ערלים," the דין is he is allowed to have הנאה from ערלי ישראל, and אסור even מולי עכו"ם. So the

גמרא wants to prove from there that a גוי, even if he is געמאלט, he is not considered געמאלט, he is still considered an ערל. And therefore, we do not say that he is considered המולים. So תוספות asks a קשיא, what kind of ראיה do we have from נדרים? Because we know that by נדרים there is a כלל, הלך אחר לשון בני אדם, that you have to follow the לשון בני אדם, which means that if somebody says a לשון in a נדר, now the meaning of that לשון doesn't depend on any הלכה. It depends on what people would use that word for. If that word by most people is used to mean a certain thing, then when this person made the נדר, we assume that's what he meant, and that would be חייב or מותר for him, whatever the נדר was. So therefore, what is the ראיה from there? Maybe a גוי who is געמאלט is considered a מהול, but still, when a person says that "I make a נדר not to have הנאה from ערלים," he's still allowed to have הנאה from מולים of גוים because people refer, when they say ערלים, to גוים, but not that על פי הלכה a גוי who is געמאלט is considered an ערל. So what is the ראיה from the דין of נדרים to the thing that the גמרא wants to use it here for? And also תוספות asks that in the גמרא over there, the גמרא brings a ראיה from a פסוק to this דין. In the פסוק we see that all the גוים are considered ערלים, and all the יידן are considered מולים. לכאורה, why do you need a ראיה from a פסוק? לכאורה, since it's נדרים, by נדרים, הלך אחר לשון בני אדם, so it doesn't matter what it says in the פסוק. There it really depends on what people mean. And תוספות answers that what the גמרא learns it out from the פסוק there is not because it is the הלכה that makes the difference, because we are not clear what the לשון בני אדם is, and that's why we use the פסוק, that from the פסוק we see what people mean. And that's what the גמרא means here too. It is not the לשון בני אדם that we're trying to bring a ראיה. We have a ראיה from a פסוק, and in the פסוק it says clearly that all the יידן are מולים and all the גוים are called ערלים. And because of that, we assume that when people say that they make a נדר not to have הנאה from ערלים, they mean from גוים, even if they are געמאלט. And that is the ראיה the גמרא uses here. The ראיה is from the פסוק, but the פסוק also proves what the לשון בני אדם is. And תוספות brings an example to that, that we find that we bring a ראיה concerning נדרים from a פסוק, even though by נדרים the דין is that הלך אחר לשון בני אדם. Because the גמרא says in פסחים דף ב' concerning what the word אור means. And the גמרא there says that from a פסוק we see that אור כוכבים אור הוא. That light that comes from stars is considered light. And the גמרא says, "What is the difference whether it is called אור or not called אור?" And the גמרא says the difference would be concerning a נדר. That if a person says that "I will not have any הנאה from אור," so he is not allowed to have any הנאה from the light of כוכבים, of stars, because we see from this פסוק that it's also considered אור. But לכאורה the קשיא is: What kind of ראיה do we have from the פסוק? Since by נדרים the דין is הלך אחר לשון בני אדם, so even if the פסוק does call it אור, it's still no ראיה that you should be אסור in אור of כוכבים, because maybe in לשון בני אדם it's not like that. Therefore, there we also must say the פשט is that the גמרא doesn't mean that from the פסוק we have a ראיה concerning נדרים. The פסוק just proves what the לשון בני אדם is. Because it is not clear what the לשון בני אדם is concerning אור, so now when the פסוק says that אור כוכבים, so we know that אור כוכבים אור הוא, and that's what people mean. And the same applies here, too. That the ראיה the גמרא there brings from the פסוק is not that this פסוק makes a difference לגבי דיני נדרים, but from the פסוק we know that the לשון בני אדם is that when you say ערלים you mean all גוים, and from there we know that the דין is if a person makes a נדר not to have any הנאה from ערלים, he means from all גוים, even from מולים. Then תוספות asks a קשיא on the other נפקא מינה the גמרא says. At the end, the מסקנא was that the נפקא מינה between the two reasons is concerning an אשה, whether an אשה is allowed to perform the מצוה of מילה. So תוספות asks a קשיא: Why doesn't the גמרא give another difference? The difference would be a person who is a מומר לערלות. A ייד who is a מומר, who doesn't keep the מצוה of מילה, he doesn't mind to be an ערל. So according to the מאן דאמר that says that we learn it out from ואתה את בריתי תשמור, then he wouldn't be included in the מצוה of מילה, because the פסוק says, "ואתה את בריתי תשמור," you should watch my ברית. Now, this מומר doesn't watch, doesn't keep the ברית of מילה. So since he doesn't keep the ברית of מילה, he's not included in the תשמור, so he cannot perform the מצוה of מילה. But according to the person who learns it out from the פסוק המול ימול, he could do it, because as the גמרא says, that a איד, even if he's not געמלט, כמאן דמהיל דמי, it's as if he's געמלט. So he is included in the המול ימול, on the other hand he's not included in the ואתה את בריתי תשמור. And תוספות brings a ראיה he's not included in the תשמור, even though he is מחוייב to perform the מצוה of מילה, but if he doesn't keep it, he is not included in that פסוק of בריתי תשמור. So תוספות brings an example concerning the ענין of תפילין. The

גמרא says in גיטין that a ישראל מומר is not considered בר קשירה. The פסוק there says וקשרתם, and then the פסוק says וכתבתם, and we learn out that anybody who is included in וקשרתם, in the מצוה of tying the תפילין, he is allowed to write the תפילין, and a מומר, since he is not included in וקשרתם, he's not included in וכתבתם. פשט is he's not included in וקשרתם? He is מחוייב to put on תפילין, but since he doesn't keep תפילין, he's a מומר to תפילין, so therefore the גמרא calls him that he is not included in וקשרתם. The same thing would be here, that even though he is מחוייב in the מצוה of מילה, but he is not included in the ואתה את בריתי תשמור, so he shouldn't be able to perform מילה. But on the other hand, if we learn it out from המול ימול, he should be able to, because even though בפועל he is not געמלט, but כמאן דמהיל דמי, as the גמרא says. And תוספות answers that באמת this person who is a מומר לערלות is still included in שמירת הברית. The only thing is that he doesn't want to keep the ברית. But when the תורה says that you should keep the ברית, it says it to him too. He is מחוייב to keep the ברית. And therefore we cannot say that he is not included in the פסוק ואתה את בריתי תשמור. Concerning קשירה, there when the גמרא says כל שאינו בוקשרתם אינו בוכתבתם, there the גמרא means בפועל. Anybody who doesn't put on תפילין, doesn't keep the וקשרתם, that person cannot do the וכתבתם. But here when it says ואתה את בריתי תשמור, we're talking about a person who is included in the ברית. He is included in the ברית. The ברית was given to him. And the פשט it seems to be is in תוספות, that by a ברית, a ברית is speaking about a חיוב. A ברית means that you are מחוייב to do a certain thing. There is a covenant between the two people which is מחייב you to do it. Now the חיוב is on all אידן. Whether he keeps it or not, that doesn't take away the חיוב. But in the פסוק וקשרתם it doesn't use the word ברית there. There it just says וקשרתם. It's speaking about the מעשה הקשירה, about the actual putting on תפילין. So there we say the one that actually doesn't put on תפילין, he is not included in וקשרתם, and therefore he cannot do the וכתבתם. But over here, as long as he's included in the ברית of מילה, he's able to do. So therefore, according to both סברות, whether it is according to the סברא that we learn it out ואתה את בריתי תשמור or we learn it out from המול ימול, according to both, a מומר לערלות would be able to perform the מצוה of מילה, and therefore the גמרא doesn't use that as a נפקא מינה. בפועל ממש, concerning this מחלוקת in the גמרא here, whether a woman is allowed to perform the מצוה of מילה or not, so תוספות brings that we should פסקן like רב, that a woman is not כשר to perform the מצוה of מילה. Even though it seems like a מחלוקת between רב and רבי יוחנן, and the כלל is always that whenever there is a מחלוקת between רב and רבי יוחנן הלכה כרבי יוחנן, but in this case the הלכה is like רב, because the ברייתא of רבי יהודה הנשיא holds that way, as the גמרא brought before, that רבי יהודה הנשיא also said that a גוי is not allowed to perform the מצוה of מילה, and the גמרא quoted the פסוק from ואתה את בריתי תשמור, so we see that even רבי יהודה הנשיא also holds the לימוד as רב does, and as the גמרא said, if you learn it out from that לימוד, a woman would not be included. But the בה״ג, the בעל הלכות גדולות, he פסקנס that a woman is כשר for מילה. And then תוספות says, according to רב that he says that a woman is not כשר to מילה, we must explain in the first פרק of קידושין, where the גמרא uses a different פסוק. The גמרא says, how do we know a woman cannot do the מצוה of מילה? Because it says אותו and we דרשן אותו ולא אותה. But לכאורה, here we have a different way to learn out that a woman cannot do the מצוה of מילה because it is ואתה את בריתי תשמור. So תוספות says that the גמרא there means that from this פסוק we learn out that a woman is not מחוייב to see that her son should be געמלט. The father is supposed to see that his son should be געמלט. The mother doesn't have a חיוב to see that her son should be געמלט, but it doesn't prove that a woman cannot perform the מצוה of מילה if she wants. That we learn out from the פסוק ואתה את בריתי תשמור. And now we will continue with the משנה. The משנה says מתרפאין מהן ריפוי ממון, you are allowed to cure yourself from a גוי a cure which is related to money, אבל לא ריפוי נפשות, but not a cure which is related to נפשות, which means to life. And the גמרא will explain what ריפוי ממון is and what ריפוי נפשות is. ואין מסתפרין מהן בכל מקום דברי רבי מאיר, and you're also not allowed to let yourself get a haircut from them in any place, not even in a public place, because we're afraid that גוי will use the knife that he uses for the haircut, he will use that to kill you. That is the opinion of רבי מאיר. וחכמים אומרים, but the חכמים say, ברשות

הרבים מותר, in a רשות הרבים, in a public place, you're allowed, אבל לא בינו לבינו, but not amongst themselves, if no one else is there, just the two alone, you're not allowed to let a גוי give you a haircut. The גמרא says, מאי ריפוי ממון ומאי ריפוי נפשות? What is the meaning of ריפוי ממון, of a cure which is related to money, and what does it mean, a cure which is related to נפשות, to life? אילימא, if you're going to say that ריפוי ממון בשכר, when it says ריפוי ממון, it means for money, for pay, ריפוי נפשות means בחינם, and ריפוי נפשות would mean if you do it for free, which means that he does it on his own will without you paying it for him, and the word נפשות then would mean out of his will, because we know that the word נפש in לשון קודש also has a meaning of רצון. As we find in חומש that when אברהם אבינו spoke to the בני חת and he told them that if they want they should speak to עפרון that he should sell him the מערת המכפלה, so there it says that he said, אם יש את נפשכם, if you want, and he used the לשון נפש. So we see that נפש means the will, and that's what the גמרא says, maybe the word נפשות here also means will. So then according to that, when it says in the משנה that you are not allowed to cure yourself from them, a ריפוי נפשות, that would mean that if you don't pay him for it, but he would cure you out of his free will, that's when you're not allowed. And the reason would be, because if you cure yourself from him for money, he won't do anything to you, because he's afraid he's going to lose the money, so why should he do it? But if he's doing it for free, then he is not afraid of any loss, so then you are not allowed to let yourself get cured from him. But if this is the פשט, the גמרא asks, ליתני, let it say, מסתראפין מהן בשכר אבל לא בחינם, it should say very clearly that you're allowed to cure yourself from them for money, but not for free. אלא, therefore, the פשט must be different. That

ריפוי ממון, what does cure related to money mean? דבר שאין בו סכנה, something that has no סכנה. There is no danger in the sickness the person has. So then you are allowed to cure yourself from them. ריפוי נפשות, what does that mean? דבר שיש בו סכנה. If the sickness the person has has a סכנה, so then you are not allowed to let yourself cure from him. And the reason, and the reason why this is called ריפוי ממון and this is called ריפוי נפשות, because if there is no סכנה, what could the גוי do? The גוי could make that the sickness should get be worse. We don't suspect that through the cure he will kill him, all he will do is that this sickness that he has will get even worse, and since it's a sickness which has no סכנה, so he will not die from it, but what will happen, it will get worse, and you will have to spend more money in finding the cure. That's why this is called ריפוי ממון, and that is also the reason why you are allowed to cure yourself from him, because there is no סכנה that he will kill you. But ריפוי נפשות means that it's a סכנה in the sickness he has, and therefore we're afraid that the גוי, when he will cure him, instead of curing him, he will make it worse. Now since it's a sickness with a סכנה, when he makes it worse, it'll make the person die. That's why you're not allowed. But the

גמרא asks, how can you say that in a case where it is not a סכנה, you are allowed to let yourself get cured from the גוי, והאמר רב יהודה, didn't רב יהודה say, אפילו ריבדא דכוסילתא לא מסינן מינייהו, that even a scar over the puncture caused by bleeding should not be healed by them, so even if it is not a סכנה, you are not allowed to cure yourself from the גוים? So the גמרא says, therefore you must say, אלא ריפוי ממון בבהמתו. What does the משנה mean that you're allowed to let yourself get cured, a ריפוי ממון, that means if your בהמה is sick, you're allowed to let your בהמה get cured. And the reason it's called ריפוי ממון, because a בהמה is the ממון of the person, so you're allowed to let your ממון get cured from the גוי. ריפוי נפשות, what does that mean? גופיה, yourself. The person himself, if he is sick, he's not allowed to have a גוי cure him. והיינו דאמר רב יהודה, and this is what רב יהודה said, in other words, it fits to what רב יהודה said, אפילו ריבדא דכוסילתא לא מסינן מינייהו, that even a scar over the puncture caused by bleeding, you should not be healed by them. And because according to this פשט, ריפוי נפשות means that yourself, even if it is not a סכנה, you're not allowed to let the גוי cure you, so this fits to what רב יהודה said. Then the

גמרא says, אמר רב חסדא אמר מר עוקבא, רב חסדא said in the name of מר עוקבא, אבל אם אמר לו סם פלוני יפה לו, סם פלוני רע לו, but if the גוי says to him, "This medicine is good for you, this medicine is no good for you," מותר, you are allowed to listen to him and follow his instructions. And the reason is because סבר, the גוי thinks, שיוולי משייל ליה, he is just asking him, which means he is just testing him, כי היכי דמשייל ליה, משייל לאינשי אחריני, just like he's asking him, him what medicine to use, he's probably going to ask other people also. ואתי ההוא גברא לארועי נפשיה, and this person, meaning this גוי who is going to give an answer will spoil it for himself. Because this ייד might ask somebody else also, and he'll find out that he is lying to him, so he's going to spoil his reputation. So therefore, if the גוי just tells you which medicine to use, you are allowed to listen to him, and this is not in the category of being cured by גוים. And the גמרא says אמר רבא אמר רבי יוחנן, רבא said in the name of רבי יוחנן, or another גירסא is that רבה said it in the name of רבי יוחנן.

ואמרי לה, some say אמר רב חסדא אמר רבי יוחנן, that רב חסדא said in the name of רבי יוחנן: ספק חי ספק מת, if a person is sick and there's a doubt he might die from this sickness or he might stay and live, אין מתרפאין מהן, you're not allowed to cure yourself from them. ודאי מת, but if the person is sick that he will definitely die, מתרפאין מהן, you are allowed to cure yourself from them. And then the גמרא asks: ודאי מת, why did you say that if he's definitely going to die from this sickness, you are allowed to cure yourself from them? ואיכא חיי שעה, but there is life of the time being, which means temporary life. This person who is sick, even if he will definitely die, but it'll take time till he dies. But if he goes to the גוי to cure himself and we're afraid the גוי will kill him, he will kill him now! That means that you will take away some time from his life. So even though we know for sure he's going to die, but still, temporary, he could have lived longer if not for the גוי. So why is the דין that you are allowed to cure yourself from a גוי in the case where he is ודאי מת? And the

גמרא answers: לחיי שעה לא חיישינן, we don't care about a temporary life. Since we know for sure he's going to die anyway, so even though the גוי might kill him and therefore will take away some temporary life, that we don't care about. And the גמרא says: ומנא תימרא דלחיי שעה לא חיישינן, and from where do we say this, that for temporary life we don't worry about? דכתיב, because the פסוק says: אם אמרנו נבוא העיר והרעב בעיר ומתנו שם. This is a story told in תנ״ך that there were four people who were מצורעים, they had leprosy, so they had to stay מחוץ למחנה. And they said to themselves, 'If we're going to come into the city, and there was a hunger in the city, we're going to die there. If we're going to stay here, we're also going to die.' So what did they say let's do? 'Let's go to the מחנה ארם, to the camp of ארם, who is the enemy, and we'll see what will happen there. If they will let us live and give us food, we will live, we have gained; but if they will kill us, then we will die.' And the question is, how can they do that? Maybe they will kill them there, while if they don't go there, they're going to die anyway, but it'll prolong their life; they're not going to die right away. והא איכא חיי שעה, so there is temporary life that they had, while if they're going to go to the camp of the enemy, they might even lose that. And still, they said let's better go to the מחנה ארם, to the enemy. אלא לאו, don't we see from here that לחיי שעה לא חיישינן, that we don't worry about temporary life? Then the גמרא says: מיתיבי, I will ask you a קשיא. It says: לא ישא ויתן אדם עם המינים, a person should not have any business with the מינים, which means not to get into conversation and to dialogues with the מינים. ואין מתרפאין מהן, and you're not allowed to cure yourself from them, אפילו לחיי שעה, even if the difference will be in temporary life, which means even if a person is going to die anyway, still you're not allowed to cure yourself from the מינים, because they might kill you, and even though you're going to die anyway, but since they might kill you and take away some of the days or the time, the hours that you could have lived longer, that's why you're not allowed to cure yourself from the מינים. And the גמרא continues:

מעשה בבן דמא בן אחותו של רבי ישמעאל, a story with בן דמא, who was the son of the sister of רבי ישמעאל, שהכישו נחש, a snake bit him, ובא יעקב איש כפר סכניא לרפאותו, and יעקב, the man from the כפר סכניא came to cure him, and he was a מין. ולא הניחו רבי ישמעאל, and רבי ישמעאל didn't let him. ואמר ליה רבי ישמעאל אחי, so he said to him, 'רבי ישמעאל, my brother, הנח לו, let him, וארפא ממנו, and let me cure myself from him.' The sick person, בן דמא, said this to רבי ישמעאל, 'רבי ישמעאל, my brother, let him do it, ואני אביא מקרא מן התורה, and I will bring you a פסוק from the תורה שהוא מותר, that it's allowed.' Because he didn't want to let him because he claimed it wasn't allowed. So he said, 'Let him, and I will prove you from the תורה that it is allowed.' ולא הספיק לגמור את הדבר, and he didn't manage to finish his statement, עד שיצתה נשמתו, till his נשמה went out, ומת, and he died. קרא עליו רבי ישמעאל, רבי ישמעאל called upon him: אשריך בן דמא, good is to you בן דמא, שגופך טהור, that your body is clean, ויצתה נשמתך בטהרה, and your נשמה went out in cleanliness, ולא עברת על דברי חבריך, and you weren't עובר on the words of your friends, which means of the other חכמים, שהיו אומרים, that they said, ופורץ גדר ישכנו נחש, that somebody who breaks through the fence, a snake should bite him, which means that if somebody breaks the fence that the חכמים set aside, when the חכמים said that certain things should not be done, and they made it as a fence that people shouldn't come to do עבירות, so anybody who goes against it and breaks through this fence, so the punishment will be that a snake will bite him. So he said that good is to you that you did not break through the fence, that you did not let yourself get cured from this מין because the חכמים said that you are not allowed to get cured from a מין. But in the meantime we see from here that even though it was only a question of חיי שעה, he would have died anyway, nevertheless, you're not allowed to let a מין cure you. And before we said that we are not חייש for חיי שעה, and therefore if a person is ודאי מת, he's definitely going to die, you are allowed to let the גוי cure you. The

גמרא answers, שאני מינות, מינות is different. Before we were talking about a גוי, so by a גוי the דין is that if it is ודאי מת, he definitely will die, you are allowed to let the גוי cure you. But here it was a story of a מין. מינות is different, דמשכא, this is something that pulls, דאתי לאימשוכי בתריה, here we're afraid that if the מין is going to cure you, he might pull you after it. So even if it is a question only of חיי שעה, you're not allowed to let the מין cure you, because you might be pulled after the מינות that the מין has, and that is worse than a גוי. Then the גמרא continues, אמר מר, we have learned before that רבי ישמעאל said concerning his nephew, לא עברת על דברי חבריך, good is to you that you were not עובר on the words of your friends שהיו אומרים that they said ופורץ גדר ישכנו נחש, that if somebody breaks through the fence of the חכמים, a snake should bite him. So he said, now you are safe from that, good is to you that you were not עובר, so now a snake didn't bite you. But the גמרא asks, איהו נמי חויא טרקיה, but him too a snake bit. In other words, what did he say? Had you been עובר, a snake would have bit you. But a snake טאקע bit him. And just like this snake bite that he had, he could have been cured, the only reason he wasn't cured because the only doctor was the מין, and you're not allowed to cure yourself from the מין, but otherwise he could have been cured, so had he been עובר on the words of the חכמים, what would have been his punishment? A snake would have bit him, so he would have been cured from that bite also! So what did רבי ישמעאל mean when he said good is to you that a snake didn't bite you? And the גמרא answers that חויא דרבנן, the snake that would bite a person for being עובר on the words of the רבנן, דלית ליה אסותא כלל, it's a kind of bite that has no cure. And that's what he said, the bite that you had was a bite that could have been cured, but the snake that would have bit you because of the רבנן, then you wouldn't have been able to be cured at all. And the reason is because a person who is עובר on דברי חכמים, he's חייב מיתה, רש״י says. Then the גמרא asks, ומאי הוה ליה למימר, what could he have said? He said to רבי ישמעאל, let him do it, and I will quote you from the תורה that you're allowed to let him do it. What פסוק could he have said to רבי ישמעאל? And the גמרא says he could have said a פסוק, וחי בהם, the תורה says concerning מצוות, you should live with them, so we learn out from there, ולא שימות בהם, that not you should die from them. In other words, the תורה was given that people should live with the תורה, but not that a person should use the תורה to die. And therefore, he would have claimed you were allowed to let this מין cure him, because we cannot say that the תורה should tell you to do something that would cause you to die. So we cannot say that the תורה would forbid you from curing yourself from the מין and die. But then the גמרא says, and רבי ישמעאל, so it's a good קשיא on רבי ישמעאל, how did רבי ישמעאל say that you are not allowed to, but doesn't the פסוק say וחי בהם? And the גמרא answers, הני מילי בצנעא. This פסוק that says וחי בהם that you should not die through the מצוות is only if the עבירה you'll be doing is בצנעא, hidden, in private, אבל בפרהסיא לא, but if you're doing an עבירה בפרהסיא, in public, so then this פסוק וחי בהם doesn't apply, and you should rather die than do the עבירה in public. דתניא, as we learn in a ברייתא, היה רבי ישמעאל אומר, רבי ישמעאל used to say, מנין, how do we know, שאם אומרים לו לאדם, עבוד עבודה זרה, if you tell a person worship עבודה זרה, ואל תהרג, and then you won't get killed, if you don't worship it I'll kill you, but if you do worship it, you will not get killed, so how do we know the דין is שיעבוד ואל יהרג, that he should טאקע worship עבודה זרה and not get killed? תלמוד לומר, the פסוק says וחי בהם, and we דרשן, ולא שימות בהם, we should live with them and not die with them, which means that never should a דין in the תורה cause you to die. But יכול, I would think, אפילו בפרהסיא, even if he wants you to do the עבודה זרה in public, that you should also do the עבודה זרה rather than dying, תלמוד לומר, the פסוק says says ולא תחללו את שם קדשי. You should not desecrate My holy name, and if you do it in the public, it is a חילול השם. That's when you have to go on מסירות נפש and let yourself get killed. And the same is here, too, that this was done in public, and that's why רבי ישמעאל held that you're not allowed to let the מין do it, because this is connected to מינות and to עבודה זרה, which is in public. And there, רבי ישמעאל holds, the פסוק וחי בהם does not apply. While his nephew, who said that I would דרש'ן a פסוק to show you that you are allowed, he held that וחי בהם applies even if it's in public. But רבי ישמעאל didn't let him because רבי ישמעאל held that it is only in private that the פסוק וחי בהם applies, but not if it's in public. Concerning what we learned before, that the גמרא said that if he is a ספק he might live and ספק he might die, then you're not allowed to cure yourself from him. But if he's definitely going to die, you are allowed to let yourself get cured from a גוי. איי, let's be afraid he might kill him, and then there will be less חיי שעה, even though he's definitely going to die, but if the גוי will kill him now, he's going to live even less. So the גמרא said, לחיי שעה לא חיישינן. We don't care about temporary life.

תוספות asks a קשיא: what does the גמרא mean here, that we don't care about temporary life, when the גמרא says in יומא that מפקחין עליו את הגל בשבת, לחוש לחיי שעה? That if a גל, a pile of stones fell on an איד, we are allowed to be מחלל שבת and take the stones off, even if it is only לחיי שעה, even if we only save the איד for חיי שעה, meaning he should live a little longer. Even if we are sure he is going to die and it is just חיי שעה that we will save, still we care about that and you're allowed to be מחלל שבת for that. So we see we are חייש for חיי שעה. How could the גמרא say here that לחיי שעה לא חיישינן? And תוספות answers that the פשט is like this: in both places, over there where the גמרא says לחיי שעה we are חייש, and the גמרא here where it says לחיי שעה לא חיישינן, in both places we do what is better for the person. Over there, if we're not going to be חייש for the חיי שעה, he's going to die. So therefore, the דין is, we should be חייש for חיי שעה, and be מחלל שבת, take off the stones, and let him live. Over here on the opposite, here if we are going to care for חיי שעה, what are we going to say? Don't be מתרפא from the גוי. So what's going to happen? He's definitely going to die. While if we do let the גוי do it, maybe the גוי will kill him and then he will live less than he would have lived otherwise, but on the other hand, maybe the גוי will cure him and he's going to live much longer. So in this case over here, it is better for him if we are not חייש for חיי שעה, and we do allow the גוי to cure him. And that's why here the גמרא says לחיי שעה לא חיישינן. Later on, when the גמרא said that there's a difference in a גוי and מינות, that מינות is worse because we are afraid that this will pull the person to them, because שאני מינות דמשכא. So תוספות says that from here is משמע that even if the doctor is an expert, a רופא מומחה, nevertheless, if he is a מין, you're not allowed to be מתרפא from him any sickness, even if it's a sickness concerning סכנה, but if he is a מין, you are not allowed to let yourself cure from him. תוספות asks a קשיא: we find later on in the גמרא in דף כ"ח, it says, רבי אבהו took medicine from יעקב מינאה, from יעקב who was the מין. How was he allowed to do that? So תוספות says we must say the פשט is like this: that even by מינים, when the גמרא says you're not allowed to let yourself cure from them, it is only if the מין will mention the name of עבודה זרה by the רפואה, if he will say that the עבודה זרה helped him for this. Then we're afraid that this will pull the איד to follow the מינות, because if he will say the עבודה זרה helped him, and the איד will see טאקע that he was cured by this מין, so it'll bring the איד to think that really there is some ממשות, there's something in עבודה זרה. And תוספות quotes the ירושלמי, and the ירושלמי here brings the מעשה that the גמרא brings here, and the ירושלמי adds one word. It says in the ירושלמי like this: there was a story with ר' אלעזר בן דמא who was the nephew of רבי ישמעאל, that a snake bit him, and יעקב איש כפר סכניא came to cure him בשם רבו, in the name of his master, meaning in the name of his עבודה זרה. And רבי ישמעאל didn't let him. So we see that the reason why he didn't let him was not just because he was a מין, because he wanted to cure him בשם רבו, and that is the only time you're not allowed to let the מין cure you. Or תוספות says, even if he's not a מין, but if the doctor tells you, 'Drink this and this water that comes from a

certain עבודה זרה,' or he says, 'Take from this wood that is in front of this עבודה זרה,' then you're not allowed. Like the גמרא says in פסחים, בכל מתרפאין חוץ מעצי אשרה, that if you know the wood belongs to עבודה זרה, it was used as an עבודה זרה, you're not allowed to be מתרפא with it even if the person who is giving it to you is not a מין. And the ר"י even adds that this is only said if he says to him that this water or these woods are the only ones that help, but others wouldn't help. For instance, if a שד, a devil, a demon did something to it which caused the person to think so, because sometimes, תוספות says, there is a כח in the hands of the שדים to trick people. As the גמרא says in פרק רבי ישמעאל later on on דף נ״ה, that there was this place of עבודה זרה that when the world didn't have any rain, he would come to a חלום and he would say, "שחט me this person," and they would שחט, and that would bring rain. So then we see that the שדים could do it sometimes. So if the doctor says that you have to take this water or that wood because it has an עבודה זרה in it and that's the only way you will be cured, that's when you're not allowed. But if he doesn't say that it's דוקא this, that this is better than others, but what happens if he says, "Bring me water or wood"? So then you're allowed to bring, even if it's from עבודה זרה, because he didn't say that דוקא the ones from עבודה זרה is the one that's going to help. And תוספות says this is what it says in ירושלמי in פרק שמונה שרצים, that בכל מתרפאין חוץ מעבודה זרה, that you're allowed to cure yourself with everything except עבודה זרה if he says, "Bring the leaves of עבודה זרה." But if he says, "Bring me leaves," and they brought leaves of עבודה זרה, you're allowed to use it. So we see clearly that when aren't you allowed? Only if it is said to you that this is from עבודה זרה, and that's the only reason why it'll help.

Concerning what the גמרא says later on, that רבי ישמעאל says that even though the פסוק says וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם, and therefore you should worship עבודה זרה rather than die, that's only בצנעא. But בפרהסיא, if it's done in public, then the פסוק says ולא תחללו את שם קדשי, and therefore you should rather let yourself get killed than do the עבודה זרה. This is only the opinion of רבי ישמעאל. But תוספות brings that the רבנן argue on רבי ישמעאל in פרק בן סורר in סנהדרין דף ע״ד, and they say that if it's בפרהסיא, if it's in public, even a מצוה קלה, יהרג ואל יעבור. Even if it's not עבודה זרה, but it's an easy, small מצוה, so also you shouldn't do the מצוה, you should rather let yourself get killed. If it's בצנעא, if it's not in public, then there is a difference between עבודה זרה and other מצוות. By other מצוות the דין is יעבור ואל יהרג, you should be עובר and not get killed. But עבודה זרה is יהרג ואל יעבור, you should get killed and not be עובר, even if it is בצנעא. But according to רבי ישמעאל, there is no difference between עבודה זרה and any other עבירה. Because בצנעא, by all עבירות the דין is יעבור ואל יהרג, you should rather do the עבירה and not get killed, even if it's עבודה זרה. And בפרהסיא the דין is that by all עבירות is יהרג ואל יעבור, that you should let yourself get killed and not be עובר, even if it's not עבודה זרה. And the story of בן דמא in this גמרא here must have been בפרהסיא, and therefore רבי ישמעאל didn't let him get cured from the מין which is עבודה זרה. So according to this, תוספות says we're able to say that what the גמרא says later on that יעקב מינאה did some medicine to רב אבהו, that the reason it was allowed was because it was בצנעא. Because in the earlier תוספות, תוספות said that the reason it was allowed because he didn't say to him that he's doing it in the name of עבודה זרה. But according to this פשט, you don't have to say that that is the reason, you could say the reason is because this was בצנעא. And then

תוספות says that in שאילתות דרב אחאי, he פסק'נס like the רבנן that argue against רבי ישמעאל and say that בפרהסיא all עבירות יהרג ואל יעבור, and בצנעא there is a difference between עבודה זרה and other עבירות, that by עבודה זרה even בצנעא is יהרג ואל יעבור. And so too is משמע from the גמרא in the second פרק of כתובות, because there the גמרא says, אמר רבא, מי איכא מידי דאילו אתו עדים לקמן ואמרי לנו חתומי שקרא אל תהרגו, דאמרינן אין לך דבר שעומד בפני פקוח נפש אלא עבודה זרה, גילוי עריות, ושפיכות דמים. So the גמרא there says clearly that there is nothing that stands in the way of פקוח נפש, of danger of one's life, except the three עבירות of עבודה זרה, גילוי עריות, ושפיכות דמים. Now that fits only according to the רבנן, because according to רבי ישמעאל, there is no difference between other עבירות and these three עבירות. ממה נפשך, is it בצנעא, then even for עבודה זרה you don't have to be מוסר נפש. Is it בפרהסיא, then you have to be מוסר נפש even for other עבירות also. So what does the גמרא mean that אין לך דבר שעומד בפני פקוח נפש אלא עבודה זרה, גילוי עריות, ושפיכות דמים? That what is stronger than פקוח נפש, only these three עבירות? So that only fits according to the רבנן. So we see that the גמרא סתם accepts the כלל that the רבנן give, that there is a difference between these three עבירות and other עבירות. But תוספות asks a קשיא, לכאורה this is a סתירה, because רבא himself says later on here in פרק רבי ישמעאל, הכל היה בכלל לא תעבדם, שפרט לך הכתוב וחי בהם, יצא אונס. Because from the פסוק where it says וחי בהם, we learn out that if you were forced, then you are פטור from any punishment. But then the פסוק says ולא תחללו, to teach you that אפילו באונס also. So that's a סתירה: is אונס included or not? And the גמרא answers, כאן בצנעא כאן בפרהסיא, that there is a difference between בצנעא and בפרהסיא. So that only fits according to רבי ישמעאל, because according to the חכמים, concerning עבודה זרה there is no difference between בצנעא and בפרהסיא, because even בצנעא for עבודה זרה there has to be יהרג ואל יעבור. And תוספות says וצריך עיון. Now concerning the שאלה, if a person wants to be מוסר נפש on an עבירה which he doesn't have to, in other words, if it's a case where it is not one of the three עבירות, and the דין would be that you don't have to be מוסר נפש, are you allowed to be מוסר נפש or not? So תוספות has here בפירוש that if a person wants to be מחמיר on himself, and be מוסר נפש even for other מצוות, then you're allowed. As we find in the ירושלמי that it says that רבי אבא בר זמירא was by גוים and this גוי said to him, "Eat נבילה, if not I will kill you." So he said to him, "If you want, kill me, but נבילה I'm not going to eat." So really he wasn't supposed to do that. He didn't have to do that because it was only נבילה, and by נבילה there is no דין of ייהרג ואל יעבור, and there it wasn't בפרהסיא, it was בצינעא. Nevertheless, he wanted to be מחמיר on himself. So we see that if a person wants to be מחמיר on himself, then you're allowed. This is the שיטה of תוספות, and also the שיטה of the ר"ן. But we know that the רמב"ם holds that those עבירות where the דין is that יעבור ואל ייהרג, then you are not allowed to be מוסר נפש. And more than that, the רמב"ם says that if a person is מוסר נפש when he doesn't have to, מתחייב בנפשו, this person is considered that he is committing suicide. And ובפשטות the מחלוקת between תוספות and the רמב"ם is the פשט in the words that the גמרא says, "יעבור ואל ייהרג." According to תוספות the פשט is "יעבור," you are allowed to be עובר, "ואל ייהרג," and you don't have to get killed. So we understand that if a person wants to get killed rather than being עובר, he's allowed. But the רמב"ם learns that the פשט in the words is "יעבור ואל ייהרג," that means you have to be עובר, and you are not allowed to let yourself get killed. And therefore if a person does let himself get killed, then this person is מתחייב בנפשו, he's doing an עבירה. And we're able to go a step further and explain what is this מחלוקת itself based on. It's based on what we learn out from the פסוק "וחי בהם". We know that from the פסוק "וחי בהם" we learn out that a person should not get killed, but he should rather do the עבירה. Now the שאלה is, what would be without this פסוק? If, if not for this פסוק the דין would be that you would have to get killed, or the דין would be that you wouldn't have to get killed? According to תוספות the פשט is that if not for the פסוק "וחי בהם", we would assume that for every עבירה you have to let yourself get killed. So then when the פסוק comes and says "וחי בהם", so we usually don't take the חידוש to the other extreme. Anything as a חידוש against the way we would have thought otherwise, then we take it to the minimum, not to the maximum. So therefore, since without the פסוק we would say that you have to be מוסר נפש for every עבירה, comes the פסוק and says "וחי בהם", so we say, what does the פסוק mean? That you don't have to be מוסר נפש. But we don't learn out from the פסוק that you must live and not get killed, because the next step after having to be מוסר נפש is that you don't have to be מוסר נפש. So therefore תוספות learns that from the פסוק "וחי בהם" we just learn out that you're allowed to be עובר and live, and you don't have to die. But it doesn't say anywhere that you are not allowed to get killed for it. Therefore תוספות learns that it's a חומרא, and אדרבה, the person would be a צדיק, the person would be considered a חסיד if he would do it. But according to the רמב"ם we would say that the רמב"ם learns that if not for the פסוק "וחי בהם", we would think that a person doesn't have to be מוסר נפש for every other מצוה. He's allowed to, but he doesn't have to. That's how the סברא would be. So then when the פסוק comes and says "וחי בהם", what is the next step? The next step is that you must live. And therefore the רמב"ם learns that when it says "יעבור ואל ייהרג", it means that you must be עובר, and you're not allowed to let yourself get killed. Another פשט that we can say in the רמב"ם is that the רמב"ם follows the סברא that the אור החיים says. There is a famous אור החיים who says that concerning שבת, when we say that we should be מחלל שבת in order to save a person's life, he says that this is not the פשט that we are מחלל שבת, but on the contrary, by doing that we're being שומר שבת. Because one of the reasons the גמרא gives why you're allowed to be מחלל שבת for פיקוח נפש is because "חלל עליו שבת אחת כדי שישמור שבתות הרבה". We say, be מחלל one שבת so he should be able to keep many שבתות. So he says it comes out that when a person is מחלל שבת to save a person's life, this itself is a דין in שמירת שבת. Not only is it חילול שבת, but you're allowed to do the חילול שבת, but this is more than that. By doing that, you are keeping the דין of שבת. In other words, it is מצד the דיני שבת itself that you should be מחלל the שבת, this is part of the דינים of שבת. So we could say that the רמב"ם learns this not only concerning שבת, but concerning everything else. That this דין that פיקוח נפש דוחה כל התורה כולה, that פיקוח נפש pushes away the whole תורה, and you're allowed to do any עבירה for פיקוח נפש except the three, this is a דין in all these עבירות. It's part of every מצוה that if you're able to save the person, that the person should be able to continue later and fulfill these מצוות, so then the מצוה itself says that you should save the person. So it's not the פשט that you are going against the מצוה, but because פיקוח נפש is stronger than the מצוה. That is not the פשט. פיקוח נפש is not stronger, but the מצוה itself says that you should be מחלל the מצוה in order later on the person should be able to do more מצוות. And this could be the reason of the רמב״ם. That if this is the פשט, then a person is not allowed to let himself get killed for that, because then he will be going against this מצוה. If you're going to hold that this the דין of פיקוח נפש דוחה כל התורה כולה means that באמת you are טאקע דוחה כל התורה כולה, but פיקוח נפש is stronger than the מצוות, then we could say that סוף כל סוף, even though the תורה that פיקוח נפש is stronger, but you are still עובר on that מצוה or on that עבירה, so therefore if a person wants nevertheless not to be עובר, he's allowed. But if you're going to hold that it's not considered being עובר on that עבירה, the פשט is that this is part of the מצוה, that you should not let yourself get killed. So then, it's not the פשט that you're going to do a good thing because you're not going to be עובר the עבירה, even you're going to die. You're going to be keeping the מצוה if you are not going to die, even though it seems to be an עבירה, but the מצוה itself says, be עובר on me because you should be able to keep me later on. Now according to that, there is no reason, no חומרא in letting yourself get killed in order not to be עובר the עבירה. Now if there is no חומרא in it, then automatically it is מתחייב בנפשו, you're just committing suicide. And באמת we could even go a step further and say that according to the רמב״ם, that if a person is עובר on the עבירה and doesn't let himself get killed in the case where it's יעבור ואל יהרג, this itself is קידוש השם. Just like we know that if a person lets himself get killed for the three עבירות, עבודה זרה, גילוי עריות, and שפיכות דמים, that is called קידוש השם, so the רמב״ם would hold that not to let yourself get killed for other עבירות is also included in קידוש השם. Because according to the רמב״ם, קידוש השם it seems like doesn't mean דווקא getting yourself killed. Because we find in the beginning of the fifth פרק of הלכות יסודי התורה, the רמב״ם says that there is a מצוה of קידוש השם, and the רמב״ם doesn't say that the meaning of the מצוה is a person should let himself get killed for the sake of השם. And in the ספר המצוות also, when the רמב״ם speaks of the מצוה of קידוש השם, he mentions it later on about getting killed because this is part of it. But when he starts off describing what the מצוה of קידוש השם is, he doesn't say the מצוה is that we should get killed for the sake of השם wherever השם said so. In the חינוך, in the מצוה of קידוש השם, he says the מצוה is to let yourself get killed for those עבירות השם said so. But the רמב״ם doesn't say that. So we could learn according to the רמב״ם, it is part of קידוש השם to do as השם wants. And if השם said that you should be עובר the עבירה and not let yourself get killed, this itself is קידוש השם. And if we learn that, so this will explain another thing in the רמב״ם. When the רמב״ם says in הלכות יסודי התורה פרק ה, the מצוה of קידוש השם, he starts off כיצד, what is the מצוה of קידוש השם? So we would expect the רמב״ם to say that if it comes to one of the three עבירות and they tell you or do the עבירה or get killed, you should get killed. But that's not what the רמב״ם says. He starts off by saying first, if they tell you to get killed or to do any other עבירה, the דין is don't get killed. But if it is one of the three עבירות, you should get killed. So בפשטות we learn that the first part is only an introduction to the second part. The כיצד that he says to explain what קידוש השם is, is really the second part, that if it's concerning the three עבירות, you have to let yourself get killed. And when he starts off by saying that by other עבירות you don't have to let yourself get killed or you shouldn't let yourself get killed, that is only a הקדמה to the second half. But according to the פשט that we said before, we could learn that this is part of it. When the רמב״ם first says that there is a מצוה of קידוש השם and he says כיצד, he says two parts to this מצוה of קידוש השם. One part is that if they tell a person to be עובר and if not he will get killed, he should be עובר and not get killed. That is also קידוש השם. Another part of קידוש השם is if it's one of the three עבירות, so then if he does get killed and not עובר, that is the קידוש השם. So according to this, it would come out that the רמב״ם holds that קידוש השם is a much broader מצוה, not only the מצוה of getting killed, but it is a מצוה that whatever we do and we go to the limit of as how far השם wants us to go, that is the מצוה of קידוש השם. And there are many more ראיות to this סברא in the רמב״ם, but there is no time to go into אריכות.