The one who missed is greater than the one who was killed.

שו”ת › Category: general › The one who missed is greater than the one who was killed.

asked 11 months ago

Hello Rabbi. I saw that you responded to this question once but never took it seriously. And I ask if you could take the question seriously, you said you were willing to take any question on the podcast with Jeremy Vogel.
God created us with the requirements written in the Torah, and in my understanding (and I think in your understanding as well) the divine command is the most binding of all. That is why Abraham had to sacrifice his son. So I understand that it is more terrible for a person to die than for a person to ask a question, more terrible for Abraham to leave Isaac alive than to kill him.
He who does not listen to the divine command is a rebel against the purpose for which God created him. He who dies is not a rebel. There is nothing more important than obedience to the divine command. And in any case, there is nothing more terrible than disobedience.
I can understand that our feelings hurt more when someone dies, but this is a problem that exists in us due to a lack of tangible faith.
In short, do you think it would be worse for someone to die or for someone to be questioned?
I think there are a lot of people (mainly Haredi) who would think this way, so I ask you again to take the question seriously, just as a man should be taken seriously. thanks

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 11 months ago

I didn’t say I was willing to address every question. I said I was in favor of people being allowed to raise any argument and position. This is different in at least two aspects: 1. I was talking about reasoned positions and not every statement. 2. I don’t see myself obligated to address every position and argument that comes up. I’m just opposed to silencing people. Still, I will briefly address your question. The divine command does not require us to do a set of actions, otherwise God would have created us programmed and free of choice, to do exactly what is needed. The command requires us to choose this set of actions. Long live the enormous difference between the two formulations. He who listens to the divine command not out of choice and forming his own position, does not fulfill the will of God. He who chooses otherwise is infinitely better than him in terms of being a chooser. Even though in his actions he is less good. Beyond that, even if I think it’s the most important, I’m not supposed to make decisions for others. They’re supposed to decide for themselves. So even if you were right that abandonment is the worst, the decision should still be left to the person themselves. And finally, he who, if presented with arguments, would abandon them, is not a true believer even now. He simply deludes himself into believing. What value is there in that? All of this before we even get into the basic decency that every person should be allowed to form a position. Decency is also a very important value. And as an aside, according to the early Bible writers, there is a disagreement about whether one desecrates Shabbat due to spiritual danger (when one takes one’s son to be destroyed among the nations). But to save a life, it is permissible to desecrate Shabbat. So the hierarchy you established between the situations does not stand the test of halakhic law. Quotes can be brought from all sorts of directions. And by the way, I don’t take Bengbir seriously. If you’re quoting me, you should listen to what I said first.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

מוטי replied 11 months ago

First, I apologize for the lack of precision in your words.
In addition, I want to be precise and change my words a little, I was not able to convey exactly the message of my question.
I am not talking about how it is better to act in the event that I encounter the two options of missing or killing, I want to talk about values. My argument is: “It is better to die than to abandon the path of the Torah”. And I am not talking about whether it is okay to give room to arguments that will cause a person to abandon, or how it is right to act following my argument in relation to other people.
Just as it is better to leave school than to stay in it and become more ignorant, the same thing: it is better to die than to abandon the path of the Torah. It is better not to stay in the world than to stay in it and cause harm.
And even if we see that Pikuach Nefesh rejects most of the commandments, a person who has abandoned the path of the Torah is reasonable on the basis of Hebrews that he should kill and not transgress.
And despite your introduction, I would be very happy if you could answer me, why is it not a correct claim in your opinion that it is better to die than to abandon the path of the Torah? (The claim in principle only, without addressing the implications that may arise from it.)

מיכי Staff replied 11 months ago

Why would it be more important? I don't know how to answer such a general question without addressing the implications.
Incidentally, I wrote here in the past that this is simply the difference of opinion here today, on the issue of desecrating Shabbat to save a life: Whoever attributes it to ”desecrating one Shabbat” (Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya), believes that the value of Shabbat outweighs the value of life (life is for Shabbat). And whoever attributes it to ”live in them” (Shmuel) believes that life is more important (the commandments are for life).

מוטי replied 11 months ago

I wrote that it is better to die because it is better to leave the world and do no harm than to stay and do harm in it. It seems to me to be simple logic that does not require proof. Just as it is better to leave school than to cause myself destruction during my education, or any other dog’

מיכי Staff replied 11 months ago

And I explained to you why you are wrong (in my opinion). That's it, I've exhausted it.

מוטי replied 11 months ago

Thank you. I won't write any more. Just one last sentence, Shmuel, saying that life is more important as you explained because the commandments are for life.
After all, you argued (in a debate with Yaron Yadan and also in a debate with Alper, I think) that it is impossible for morality to be the purpose for which we were created because morality is only a way to lead a proper life, and there should actually be something greater than life itself that is our purpose. Isn't that so? And if so, Shmuel's point is not understood.

מיכי Staff replied 11 months ago

Search here on the site for a discussion of the issue. This is indeed the simplicity of the dispute, but there I explain that it cannot be as simple as that. Beyond that, the question of what is more important to us is not the same as the question of why God created the world.
Even on a simple logical level, the commandments are so that we can live, and then we can choose and serve God. Losing a life for one commandment is not reasonable in any way. And finally, there are 3 commandments that reject life.