Source of the obligation to give one’s life to save the common good
1) If a person is forbidden to endanger himself in order to save his friend, what halachic source is there that says saving many is different (helping Israel from a calamity that befalls them), and what is the definition of many?
2) In the ruling on the mobilization of yeshiva students, you cited a statement in the name of Rabbi Elyashiv regarding the Yom Kippur War, “You have no war of greater commandment and obligation than this.” In the source you cited, I did not find such a statement. I would be happy if you could direct me to the correct source.
I got the quotes mixed up. This is from Rabbi Zvin’s letter. Rabbi Elyashiv, in his response to Rabbi Shilat, wrote that in the war of the mitzvah of Keskinen.
1. The source is the help of Israel from a difficult situation (and this may be the case for all of Israel). This is also what some poskim learned from the people of Lod (where it was probably not the whole of Israel but the community there). But in a situation where the rescuer himself is also in danger, as in the case of Didan, then it is clear that he must fight and there is no need to divide between many and one.
1) I ask about Maimonides, how come he thinks that in public it is different?
2) Who are the jurists who learn from the Lod victims?
3) In the Lod victims, were they supposedly in danger at all? Even with the help of Israel, we have no proof of a situation in which the fighters were not in danger at all
4) What do you think about October 7th, there was an obligation to go and risk it in order to save (before the IDF entered the picture)
1. Are there any sources missing, for those who actually need them? ” Oro Maroz” for example.
2. As I think I saw in Tzitz Eliezer and others.
3. Even if there were, it is clear that giving oneself up to death is an exception to the danger that the general public faced. And besides, we are talking about a situation where they are in danger. Regarding those who are not in danger, I wrote that this is a contradiction between the view that sees this as a mitzvah that everyone is obligated to do and my system, which is the law of Picon, in which case only those in danger are obligated, unless they do not risk rescue, and then they are obligated by the law of persecutors.
4. There is an army, which is its job. When the army is not functioning, there is the law of persecutors and everyone is supposed to do what they can. It is difficult to talk about the boundaries of obligation, because I do not have to go to the ends of the earth if I know that someone is in danger.
It seems to me that you insist on looking for sharp definitions for a situation that is clear and does not need any definition or source.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
