Shluchi Mitzvah – How was Nathan Pitosi killed?

Maybe you know this. I don't. What I know is that the Sages write this, but I don't know that it actually happens. On the contrary, I know quite well that it doesn't happen. If I wanted to defend the words of the Sages themselves, I could perhaps argue that going to the mitzvah protects, but this is not an absolute defense. If there is another reason for him to die, then he might die. The Sages also say that for the sin of vows, a man's sons die, and also that he who is careful about wine for the havdalah, the wine will give him male sons. There are those who are not careful about vows and their sons do not die, and there are those who are careful and their sons do not die. There are those who are careful about the havdalah on the cup and do not have male sons (like the Chazon Ish, for example). Rabbi Achalnan Wasserman questions all of this and explains that the intention of these sayings is to say that the havdalah on the cup helps to gain male sons, but if there is another reason, then you may not gain. For example, if you havdalah on the cup but sinned in matters of vows? So instead of giving you male sons and killing them, you may not receive them at all. If this seems like a narrow explanation to you, I suggest you read my article on sustainability and see that it is not narrow at all. So why don't I think the Sages are right here? Not because reality proves otherwise, but simply because there is no reason to assume that this is the case. There is no indication of this and I don't see where they themselves could have derived this. Therefore, I assume that as long as they haven't brought me evidence, it's probably not true. So why did they say this? Maybe to encourage us to keep the mitzvot and not be afraid of the consequences. Maybe they really thought so and were wrong. Or maybe I'm the one who's wrong (this is also a possibility, of course). Remember that they also sometimes qualify these statements (for example, the Shluchi Mitzvah are damaged, here are fragments of the Yizika), and therefore always leave room for excuses. I don't usually defend those who repent. It's worth asking them. They are biased and present things in a distorted and biased way, just like those who repent when questioning atheists.