The Siyum. כמות ואיכות, History, and the Axis

I attended the Siyum at the Metlife Stadium, and it was similar to my visit to the Grand Canyon; my wife and I stood at the edge of the precipice and looked out over the canyon but we weren't emotionally moved.  What we saw was so unprecedented, so completely foreign to our experience,  that we couldn't fully process it, and saw it as if it were a large photograph, as if it were two dimensional.  I was only in retrospect that it began to acquire dimensions.

At the stadium last night, I saw the vast number of people gathered for Chavivus haTorah, but to me it seemed to be only a quantitative experience.  In other words, that there was no essential difference between one person and ten and ten thousand and ninety thousand.  It's all just more of the same.  A quantitative difference is not necessarily a qualitative difference, a difference in כמות does not mean that there is any difference in איכות.  It was nice, I was thrilled and proud that so many people braved the weather- it had poured the whole day, there was thunder and lightening, and everyone that came knew they might spend four hours sitting fully clothed in a steam-room shower.  (In fact, though, the rain stopped as if someone flipped a switch at seven o'clock, the sky cleared, and cool breezes came through the stadium.  To say the least, we did not have the experience (Sukka 28b) of an עבד שבא למזוג כוס לרבו ושפך לו קיתון על פניו, thank G-d.)

But, again, the unprecedented number certainly was a testament to the dedication of the organizers and the attendees, and certainly a Kiddush Hashem, but ultimately just a lot of individual good Jews that got together in a stadium.

Even at that time, I realized that most likely my perception bespoke insensitivity on my part.  After all, the Shechina is present with a minyan but not when there is less than a minyan, so it stands to reason that with the enormous gathering there was some kind of unique hashra'as hashechina.  It was only my failure to sense the spiritual impact of this large gathering, but no doubt there was some threshold change that I could not see.

But there was a moment when that changed.

I can identify precisely when I finally did sense the crowd becoming an organic whole, when the amazing כמות created a fantastic new איכות.  That was when after the siyum everyone began singing and dancing.  I am not skilled enough to describe the spiritual transcendence I experienced at that moment, the sense of expansion and coalescence of myself into the crowd and the crowd into myself.  All the talk of כאיש אחד בלב אחד was, until that moment, just a demagogic trope.  At that moment, it became a reality.

It happened, for me, a second time.  When Rabbi Frand was speaking, there were moments when you felt the crowd breath together- inspiration taken literally.  Ninety thousand people suddenly drawing and holding a breath was not merely an audible experience, it was, for a moment, like we were one single organic whole.

Shlomo Rechnitz, of Los Angeles, spoke last night, and said that he was struck by the contrast between two events that took place on the same date seventy six years apart.  In 1936, Hitler ימח שמו completed the construction of the enormous Olympic Stadium for the Summer Olympics held in Munich, to showcase the superiority of the German Volk, the Aryan race.  On August first of that year, he spoke at the opening ceremony of the Summer Olympics in that stadium, which had a seating capacity of 100,000.  Exactly seventy six years later, almost 100,000 men, women, and children of the nation he almost destroyed gathered in another stadium to sing and celebrate the eternity of our people and our Torah.  לוּלֵי תוֹרָתְךָ שַׁעֲשֻׁעָי אָז אָבַדְתִּי בְעָנְיִי.  The Gematria of לוּלֵי is seventy six, and it was only our Torah that brought us back from the גֵיא צַלְמָוֶת.

Mr. Rechnitz noted the striking coincidence of the two dates- August 1, 1936, and August 1, 2012.  I would like to point out that the two Hebrew calendar dates are also the same-

August 1, 1936  י"ג אב תרצ"ו  

August 1, 2012  י"ג אב תשע"ב

Leni Riefenstahl exploited the ecstatic submersion of the individual into the mass with her torch-lit extravaganzas and marches and crowds.  Last night, we did the exact opposite.  Their Triumph of Will was of the Will to murder, their Sieg des Glaubens was of faith in blood and ugliness and darkness  Our Triumph was a triumph of life and spirituality and beauty and light.  Koheles 7:14-

ביום טובה היה בטוב וביום רעה ראה גם את זה לעומת זה עשה האלוהים

Ponovezher Rov was once in Rome, seeking support for his yeshiva, and it was raining and he had a flight to catch, but he told his driver that he wanted to see the Arch of Titus.  His driver, a frum person, was surprised.  Yes, the arch is historically interesting, it has a carving of the Menora, it's a great tourist attraction but it was really late, it was cold, they had no time.  The Rov insisted; I need to go see it.  (I have verification of this story from Mrs. Rashi Shnell, who was working in the New York office of the Ponovezher Yeshiva when it happened, and she heard it from the driver.)

Over the driver's protests, they went to the arch, the Rov got out of  the car in the rain, and he lifted his fist at the arch, and said, Titus, Titus, I am a Rosh Yeshiva.  I have a Yeshiva in Eretz Yisrael in Bnei Brak, and I have one thousand Talmidim in my yeshiva that are learning Torah right now.  You thought you could destroy my people.  Titus, look at where I am, and look where you are now.  We will live forever, and you are nothing.

Last night, for a moment, I was not myself.  I was a multitude, a multitude of Torah and eternity.  Time was compressed and I felt that I, we, were the pivot- the true Axis- of human history.

*

Like Tops

A dear friend of mine has been attending my daf shiur since Brachos.  His background in Gemara was relatively perfunctory, but a friend of his convinced him to attend the last siyum, and the speeches, particularly those of Rabbis Zev Cohen and Yisachar Frand inspired him to join the shiur, and he's come every day or listened to a recording.  He has an excellent head and an excellent memory, and he has taken to the Gemara wonderfully.  For some reason, around a year and a half ago, he asked me to explain to him the sugya of מפגלין בחצי מתיר, the subject of a machlokes Reb Meir and the Chachamim in, among other places, Zevachim 41b.  I was bowled over by the question.  The whole concept of Pigul is something that until a few years ago, unless he learned in Brisk, the average person would have no clue even what Pigul was.  Then to wonder what the pshat is in מפגלין בחצי מתיר, which presupposes a broad exposure to the sugyos of pigul, you would really have to be a seriously advanced student. And here you have this guy, whose heart and mind and spirit tantalized him with dreams of immersion in Gemara, but who previously had known little, who is bothered that he doesn't clearly understand what the machlokes on מפגלין בחצי מתיר is about.  (To clarify- he wasn't asking about the simple meaning, he wanted to understand the issue that underlies the machlokes.)

I told him that in the future, whenever he meets someone who seems to know how to learn, he should ask him the same question.  So, over the last year and a half, whenever he met someone that looks like he might be a talmid chacham, or who claims to be a talmid chacham, he asked "I'm having trouble understanding a certain sugya.  Could you please explain to me אין מפגלין בחצי מתיר?"

The answers he's received have varied from totally incompetent to reasonably informed.  Most often, he gets five seconds of stunned silence, followed by hilarious laughter at the incongruity of encountering a question from deepest, darkest kodshim in the work world.

This is particularly interesting in light of his background.  


His mother was one of the founders of Yeshiva of Flatbush, but prior to that, she was basically your regular cadre type of communist, and even till the end, she was far more interested in higher classical education than Gemara.


His father in law was one of the illuyim of Kamenitz, an absolute baki in Shas and Rishonim, as I can personally attest, whose experience during and after the war left him with a broken spirit, and who became a shochet and spent most of his days far from his family and his community.  He was proud of his son in law, who is a precious soul and yarei shamayim, but I'm pretty sure he never discussed one word of Gemara with him.



Now, here's the rest of the story.  A few days ago, he got a call from an attorney from Israel who is in Chicago for a few months to get an MA in Taxation from Northwestern.  She wanted to know if she could hitch a ride downtown with him, since he goes to his office every day.  He agreed, and the next morning he picked her up and they had a nice conversation on the way to work.  He asked her how she spends her time away from work, and she told him that she gives a Daf Yomi shiur, and has given it for seven years.  Coincidentally, before she began saying the shiur, she was given a bechina to determine her ability to say a shiur, and, obviously, she passed.  The bochen turned out to have been a classmate of my friend's from Yeshiva of Flatbush.


Hmmmm.  She says she has given a daf yomi for the entire cycle.  So what does my friend ask her?  He asks her, "I would really appreciate it if you could explain a Gemara I've been having trouble understanding.  Could you explain to me the sugya of אין מפגלין בחצי מתיר?"


So she answered, "Ah, אין מפגלין בחצי מתיר.  Yes, it is a sugya in Menachot, on daf Yud Zayin Amud Aleph, and it refers to someone who was bringing a Korban Mincha, and he had Kavanat Pigul when he brought the Kometz but not when he brought the Levona.  Since both are matirim, each avoda is a חצי מתיר."


No hesitation, no ambiguity, like an arrow straight to the mark.  Now, knowing pashut pshat in the Gemara, even in all of Shas, means you're a yad'an, and it has no shaichus to being a talmid chacham, just as saying Tehillim- even if you know what the words mean- does not make you a Bible Scholar.  But still.......


On the same topic, Mazal Tov to my cousin Avigayil.  She, too, has been giving a Daf Yomi shiur for a couple of years at Yeshiva/Midrasha, the women's branch of the Yeshiva in Gush Eztion, run by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein"s daughter, and is going for a degree in Talmud at Bar Ilan.

So after this whole story, here's the point I want to make.  Chazal (Yevamos 97a, שפתותיו דובבות בקבר,) tell us that when you say over someone's Torah, his lips move in the grave.  In this particular case, I think it's more than that.  This time, I think there are three people who are actually spinning in their graves:

My friend's communist mother; 

His Kamenitzer illuyisheh boki b'shas shver who never had a hava amina to talk to him in learning; 

and especially Reb Meir Shapiro.


הנחש הקדמוני 

The Siyum HaShas. אנו רצים והם רצים

12th siyum hashas metlife stadium teddy agudah aguda meir shapiro 90,000 
I'm planning to attend the siyum at the Metlife stadium, and I'm very excited about joining this unprecedented gathering.  The sense of Kiddush Hashem, the feeling that the Jew's love affair with the Torah is unquenchable by the passage of millenia and galus and wholesale destruction and continues to grow, cannot be better expressed than at such a gathering.

Most of the people in my shiur will be staying in Chicago and attending the local siyum.  I was disappointed to learn that some of the chaveirim are not excited about going to the siyum gathering.  Some feel they don't remember enough, or that it's too big of a gathering, or that too many people who didn't learn will be there, or they have a bad history with some of the organizers, and so on.  I strongly feel they should go.  As I was contemplating the upcoming event, I was reminded of the marathons that are held in many large cities, and how excited people are to finish, even though they take hours longer than the Kenyans.  Just finishing, imagine how satisfying that is.... this is a visual thing, and I recommend that you try to visualize this as you read it.  (It would make a great video, and I spoke to Aish about making one, but it doesn't speak to their demographic.)

A man wakes up early every morning and puts on his running shoes.  He goes out in all weather, snow, rain, hail, baking heat, freezing cold, it doesn't matter.  If it's impossible to run outside, bedi'eved, he'll get on the treadmill, but it's not the same at all.  The point is, that his determination and discipline drive him to just do it, no matter how tired or lazy he's feeling that day, and he does it every single day.

A Ben Torah gets up early every morning, no matter what the weather is, no matter how tired he is, and he goes to the shiur and focuses as best as he can on the words of Torah.  It's dark outside, it's freezing, it's boiling, doesn't matter.  You have to go to the shiur.  If you think you're going to turn over and learn later on the train, your wife kicks you out of the bedroom.  You go, every day, tired, hot, cold, wet, no excuses.

After months of training, the day comes, and you've finally gotten yourself in good enough shape to join the other runners.  There are thirty thousand people there.  Some are bronzed and lithe, like animated beef jerky, some are overweight, some are in wheelchairs, but the excitement is in the air.  They're off- and finally, many hours later, the last one drags himself over the line, as proud as can be.  Look what I've accomplished!  I would have regretted my whole life that I could have done this, but I was lucky and smart and disciplined enough to follow through!

It doesn't matter that by the time he's finished, all the reporters are in bed and all that's left is cups and cleaning crews.  He did it!

How proud he is to get a certificate, Ploni finished the Boston Marathon!  He'll buy a t-shirt that heralds his achievement, he might mention it in conversation, when he meets someone else that's done it, he somehow senses that this is a compatriot with whom he's shared so much pain and joy.

After seven and a half years of learning, they come together to celebrate Torah, and to celebrate Klal Yisrael's love of Limud Hatorah. The speeches, well, some are magnificent and to the point.  The singing is inspiring.  The different kinds of people- with yeshiva backgrounds, without, srugies, blacker than black, professionals, businessmen, Kollel Yungeleit, men, women, children, no two of whom totally agree on any point- gathered for only one common purpose:  to celebrate our beloved Torah.

Runners usually are healthier, they are usually trim and fit.  They're less prone to minor ailments, other than knee problems, and running generally improves the quality of life.  But it only improves life.  It's what we call חיי שעה.  It does nothing for your existence after this life, for your חיי עולם.  Ultimately, the benefits of running end in the same place life ends, sooner or later, in the grave.

People who learn the daf, people who are  קובע עתים לתורה , they run, too.  It doesn't do much for their bodies, but it does make their soul fit.  It doesn't get them from place A to place B in a hurry, but it is a chariot of fire that transports them to the eternal world of truth. !אשר נתן לנו תורת אמת, וחיי עולם נטע בתוכנו   It gives them Olam Haba, it gives them Techiyas Hameisim.

אנו רצים והם רצים, אנו רצים לחיי העולם הבא, והם רצים לבאר שחת.
daf yomi
siyum hashas metlife stadium teddy stadium aguda shas 

Matos, Bamidbar 31:4. Shevet Levi's Military Service Exemption

This was originally posted in 2011.  I incorporate here the comments, and the response by Dr. Nachum Stone.

The Tribe of Levi did not fight in the Jewish wars.  This is obvious in numerous pesukim in the Torah, such as the many censuses which state explicitly that Shevet Levi was not counted because they were not Yotzei Tzava.  Additionally, whenever war is described in Yehoshua and Shoftim, all the other tribes are mentioned, but never Shevet Levi, not in Milchemes Mitzva/divine imperative war, not in Milchemes Reshus/politically motivated war, and not in Milchemes Amalek/the war against Amalek.

This fundamental rule is crystallized in the Rambam's words at the end of Shmita ve'Yovel:

ולמה לא זכה לוי בנחלת ארץ ישראל ובביזתה עם אחיו? מפני שהובדל לעבוד את י"י לשרתו ולהורות דרכיו הישרים ומשפטיו הצדיקים לרבים, שנאמר יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל. לפיכך הובדלו מדרכי העולם. לא עורכין מלחמה כשאר ישראל, ולא נוחלין, ולא זוכין לעצמן בכח גופן. אלא הם חיל השם שנאמר ברך י"י חילו. והוא ברוך הוא זוכה להם שנאמר אני חלקך ונחלתך.   ולא שבט לוי בלבד, אלא כל איש ואיש מכל באי העולם אשר נדבה רוחו אותו והבינו מדעו להבדל לעמוד לפני י"י לשרתו ולעובדו לדעה את י"י והלך ישר כמו שעשהו האלהים ופרק מעל צוארו עול החשבונות הרבים אשר בקשו בני האדם, הרי זה נתקדש קדש קדשים, ויהיה י"י חלקו ונחלתו לעולם ולעולמי עולמים. ויזכה לו בעה"ז דבר המספיק לו כמו שזכה לכהנים ללוים. הרי דוד ע"ה אומר י"י מנת חלקי וכוסי אתה תומיך גורלי:

So it's not only Shevet Levi.  This exemption includes all who take upon themselves lives exclusively dedicated to study and religious service.

From this Rambam, all we know is that people who are exclusively dedicated to learning Torah are exempt from conscription.  But what of people who work, but are Talmidei Chachamim?  For that, we look to the Rambam in 6 Talmud Torah 10:

תלמידי חכמים אינם יוצאין בעצמן לעשות עם כל הקהל בבנין וחפירה של מדינה וכיוצא בהן כדי שלא יתבזו בפני עמי הארץ. ואין גובין מהן לבנין החומה ותיקון השערים ושכר השומרים וכיוצא בהן ולא לתשורת המלך. ואין מחייבים אותן ליתן המס בין מס שהוא קצוב על בני העיר בין מס שהוא קצוב על כל איש ואיש שנאמר גם כי יתנו בגוים עתה אקבצם ויחלו מעט ממשא מלך ושרים. וכן אם היתה סחורה לתלמיד חכם מניחים אותו למכור תחלה ואין מניחים אחד מבני השוק למכור עד שימכור הוא. וכן אם היה לו דין והיה עומד בכלל בעלי דינים הרבה מקדימין אותו ומושיבין אותו:

It appears that the concept of "Shevet Levi" applies both to those that are dedicated to exclusive Torah study and also to the Talmidei Chachamim (a contextually sensitive term whose meaning changes according to the time and place, as evident in various applications which I don't feel like looking up now.)

So it is clear that Shevet Levi did not go to war, not Milchemes Mitzva, not Milchemes Reshus, and not Milchemes Amaleik.  What did they do?  They learned and davenned.  As the Gemara in Makkos 10a says, א"ר יהושע בן לוי מאי דכתיב (תהילים קכב) עומדות היו רגלינו בשעריך ירושלם? מי גרם לרגלינו שיעמדו במלחמה - שערי ירושלם שהיו עוסקים בתורה .  But there was one and only one exception:  The war with Midian, as described in our parsha.  Rashi in 31:4 says לכל מטות ישראל: לרבות שבט לוי:.  This is based on Rashi's girsa in the Sifri here (although the Gaon has the Sifri saying the opposite.)   Rashi's Sifri is stating that Levi did not join the battle in other wars, but the war against Midian was the exception.

Another odd thing about this War is that only here are we introduced to the idea of having dedicated davenners for each soldier.  What happened in the earlier war with Sichon and Og?

Of course, the two singularities explain each other.

In all other wars, Shevet Levi had the job of davenning for Klal Yisrael, and there was no need to dedicate a mispallel for each soldier.  In the war of Midian, on the other hand, Shevet Levi was on the battlefield, just as all the other Shevatim were.  If so, there was no Shevet- there was no eidah- that was completely and exclusively dedicated to tefilla and Torah.  So davka in this war was there a requirement of having Anshei Ma'amad.

One more question: Why was the War of Midian different from all other wars?  Why were the Leviim told to join the war on the battlefield?

The Rogotchover says that this was not a Milchemes Mitzva and it was not a Milchemes Reshus.  It did not have the dinim of Milchama at all.  It was, as he explains here, an action of revenge.  He says it was נקמה, not מלחמה.  It was an infliction of נקמת השם במדין.  He says there are many halachic differences between the two.  Two examples: here there was not din of יפת תואר, and there was no rule of only surrounding the enemy on three but not four sides.

In any case, I look forward for someone to explain to me why the idea of military exemption for Talmidei Yeshivos elicits such anger from other Frum Jews.  I'm not talking about Tel Avivians, who, beginning at around the same age that Dati children are being taught Torah tziva lanu Moshe. are taught to abhor Chareidim.  I'm curious about Frum Jews who hate the Chareidim for avoiding the draft.  Of course, the system is abused, and batlanim and shkotzim and black marketers take advantage of it.  But as far as I can tell, the people who disparage the Chareidim for draft avoidance do so wholesale, not retail, and feel that even yeshiva bachurim who are sincere and serious masmidim ought to be in the army.

Since it's the Three Weeks, and, as I've said, we're fated to be at each other's throats anyway, please feel free to heap invective upon me.  Catharsis is good for you.

By the way: Just as the Eim Habanim Smeicha is endlessly cited in the DL community, here's someone with sterling credentials that says pshat in the Rambam like me:  Rav Tikotzinsky, writing for Rav Herzog.  (An epitaph for Rav Tikotzinsky is here.)  You really don't need rayos that the Rambam means what he says, but there it is anyway.  See also the Ambuha D'Sifri vol II page 518, or here, and the Pnei Meivin in Sanhedrin 20b, here.

Rabbi Yonoson Rosenblum mentioned this issue in an article some time ago.  The full article is located here, and I quote the most relevant passage:

The resentment of those who serve three years in the army – often in circumstances of great danger – towards those who do not serve, is understandable from their point of view. Yet the chareidi world will never agree to dismantle the hundreds of yeshivos built from the ashes over the last fifty years and send our 18-year-olds into the army. If the price of an improved public image is the destruction of the world of Torah, it is a price that cannot be paid. We also have our world view, and know that without the protection of Torah learning Israel cannot defend itself.

The chareidi rejection of army service for 18-year-olds (the traditional draft age) has both a positive and a negative dimension. The positive is the insistence on the incomparable value of Torah learning in Hashem’s eyes. The Yeshiva world rejects the assertion that yeshiva students do not contribute to the national defense. On the contrary, yeshiva students are told repeatedly that their learning is the greatest protection of the Jewish people in Eretz Yisroel. Though it is true that a radical division of labor exists in Israeli society, it is not just between those who serve in the army and those who don’t, but more fundamentally between the 10-15% who are shomer mitzvos and those who are not.

Even at Mercaz HaRav, long viewed as the flagship yeshiva of the National Religious world, boys are strongly encouraged to push off army service in favor of full-time learning during the crucial years prior to marriage, and for several years thereafter.

The negative objection to army service derives from the use of the Israeli army as an instrument of socialization. Chareidim have no desire to have their children socialized to norms antithetical to the Torah and in a spiritually threatening environment. Israel, for instance, has long been the only non-revolutionary society to draft women. The recent push to integrate women into combat units has caused many even in the national religious world to reconsider the propriety of army service.

Nor can we control the irrational aspects of the hatred. A certain antipathy to the Torah and those who learn it is built into the Creation. Where does the name Sinai come from? Chazal ask. They answer: From there sina (hatred) came into the world (Shabbos 89b).

(end quote)

Here's an abstract of some fellow's master thesis at an American college.  Found here.

The haredim in Israel are an ultra-Orthodox Jewish religious group who uphold the most conservative of Jewish laws. Instead of serving in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as all other Israelis do, the haredim are exempted from the IDF's policy of universal conscription. This thesis proposes three hypotheses to determine why Israel's haredim do not serve in the IDF. First, the haredim do not serve in the IDF because they do not want to; second, the haredim do not serve because they hold pacifistic political opinions; and third, the haredim do not serve because Jewish religious tradition forbids military service. To test these hypotheses, data were gathered by conducting a literature review and studying Israeli newspapers, official Israeli Government statistics, and unofficial public opinion surveys. Accordingly, a close examination of both the haredi worldview and the cultural characteristics of Israel's haredi communities suggests that the haredim do not want to serve in the IDF for self-interested reasons. Furthermore, a survey of haredi political opinions indicates that the majority of haredim exhibit a hawkish and aggressive political orientation. Finally, an analysis of individual haredi voices reveals that haredi yeshiva students consider their Torah studies to be an integral component to Israel's wartime activities. Contrary to the expectations of this thesis, haredi resistance to military service is not defined by an aversion to war or a commitment to peace, and it therefore cannot serve as a model for advocates of conflict resolution to emulate.  

And finally, reporting from Yediot Achronot..........

Activists protest haredi draft dodging - Israel News, Ynetnews

Comments that came in last year:

Anonymous said...

Okay, I'll try to explain to you the Orthodox resentment as best I can. But firstly, let me just say that I don't think Tel avivians are being taught to hate Chareidim. I think they're being taught to value earning a living. And they look down in those who don't share those values like the Chareidim look down on those who don't share their values. But now to the army issue- I think part of it is simply a numbers issue- if 5% of people were designated "super-learners" and were exempt from the Army- I think a significant amount of the Orthodox opposition would disappear- but it's not the case- with very few exceptions Charedim don't go to the army-period. It's not a select elite- in your words, it's 'wholesale', not 'retail'.Not every Chareidi is a talmud chacham. So it's not a learning Torah issue at all- it's a priority and value issue- it's just not important enough for them to do. And that's the problem. The Dati Leumi know that they are picking up the slack. And thank G-d that they do. Can you imagine what a Chillel Hashem it would be if no shomer torah umitzvos people were in the Army? But that's exactly what the Chareidim seem to want.
Imagine the scene at a dati leumi shiva house for a soldier killed in battle. Imagine it's your child. I'd imagine the last person you'd want making a shiva call is someone who feels that your child is an appropriate sacrifice but not their child.
Not to mention, I'm sure Shevet Levi had a deep appreciation of what the soldiers who did fight were doing. Can you say the same about the fellows in Bnei Brak? Where are the gemachs in Meah Shearim to send pizza and cakes to the soldiers? When was the last misheberach for chayalim in a Chareidi shul?

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 1:51:00 PM CDT 

Daniel said...

Anonymous- If the greater Tel Aviv education is anything like the classes I have at Open University in Ramat Aviv then they are definitely taught (implicitly obviously) to abhor chareidim. Teachers and students alike find no qualms with a nice snide jab whenever the opportunity presents itself (although to be fair that group seems to like snide jabs at alot of other things as well) and I've gotten into more than one or two arguments with instructors who casually tell over very vitriolic rhetoric.

I'd love to see hundreds of thousands of the chareidim joining the army and education system and watch the establishment run in terror from the new ideological changes and influences that such an event would portend. Then you'd find them complaining of too many chareidim in the army who could potentially become a fifth column, with their priorities of Daas Torah and the like. On the whole, they complain because they want to complain and hate, not because they really are interested in having the chareidim join and be a mutual and contributing partner in a joint project called "the State of Israel". The shame is that the chareidim don't call their bluff and take them up on their offer. These are my impressions from the limited exposure I've had. I could always be wrong.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 4:30:00 PM CDT 

great unknown said...

The last lines of Anonymous's missive open up a can of worms that bothers me also. Where are the tefillot in the chareidi yeshivot for the soldiers. In fact, by what authority were the yeshivot mevatail the tefilla lishlom hamedinah, which is at least a d'rabbanan, and possibly midivrei kabbala?

In my shul, I modified the tefillot for the USA and Medinat Yisroel to exclude the enemies of Yiddishkeit, but we certainly said them.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 6:36:00 PM CDT 

Anonymous said...

"עיקר ההפרות - לרעת החיילים הדתיים"
"בשנת 2005 מוניתי לראשות מנהלת השילוב הראוי. רצנו במשך שלושה חודשים, יום ולילה, לניסוח המסקנות ולהטמעה שלהן בצבא, ואני יכול לומר בוודאות כי עיקר ההפרות שלהן היום הוא לרעת החיילים הדתיים. רונצקי מונה

כמה דוגמאות להחלטות "מתריסות", כמו שירת ההמנון דווקא על ידי חיילת בטקס בקורס קצינים, למרות שרוב חניכיו דתיים, או מינוי קצינת קשר בגדוד לוחם. "מג"ד כזה אמר לי במפורש: 'יש לי בעיה שהיא איתי ועם עוד שמונה חיילים בפעילות בנגמ"ש במשך כמה ימים. זה לא לעניין. זה פוגע ברמה המבצעית שלי".

לדברי הרב הצבאי לשעבר לשעבר, "מי שמבקש בחינה נוספת של הדברים - בשמחה. שיגיע ליחידות האלה גם הוא ואז יהיה לו ייצוג ונוכל לדון בהכול. זה שוק חופשי".

Wednesday, July 20, 2011 8:31:00 AM CDT 

Chaim B. said...

I wish I had time to write a full response.

>>>Yet the chareidi world will never agree to dismantle the hundreds of yeshivos built from the ashes... If the price of an improved public image is the destruction of the world of Torah, it is a price that cannot be paid.

You have got to be kidding me. It's all or nothing -- either full time learning for everyone, no exceptions, or it's the complete "destruction of the world of Torah". Life must be so easy when everything is black and white, either/or. Hesder, part time learning programs, Torah and... anything -- all worthless.

It's also don't think the charedim perceive their choice as one between competing positive values, i.e. the State and Army are important, but Torah is more important and that is my contribution. I think their attitude is that the State/Army is not a positive value at all. R' Elchanan, the Brisker Rav, were extreme anti-Zionists -- they are the heroes of the yeshiva world, are they not? How can anyone raised on R' Elchanan's mamamarim think supporting Jewish nationalism in any way is a good idea?

I have a 17 year old. Maybe 1 in 20 in his class have the potential to live up to that description of sheivet levi in the Rambam. Do you think in Israel teens are so radically different? What % truly deserve a draft exemption - 10%? 20%? Yet, the chareidi hashkafa has defined the execption as the norm, flipping the system on its head.
Enough of my rant. I should have waited until I was in a better mood to comment.

Thursday, July 21, 2011 6:28:00 PM CDT 

Dr. Nachum's post on the subject:

In the course of his vort on the unique circumstances of Milchemet Midyan, K’vod Baal Achsanya, HaRav HaGaon B, asked why is it that “Frum Jews [who] hate the Chareidim for avoiding the draft.”

                I would like to try to explain on a few levels. Firstly, no one I have ever met hates the Chareidim for anything. A much more accurate description would be resentment.

                It should be noted that all draft-dodgers are looked down-upon in Israeli society. Citizens protest if non-soldiers are hired for entertainment. Most job applications inquire of one’s military service. It’s just part of a society whose existence is so fragile.

                HaRav B seems to want to include modern Chareidi draft-avoiders in Rambam’s military exemption. [This is not the place to debate that point, but it is not universally accepted that Rambam exempts ANYONE from a Milchemet Mitzvah. V’AKMAL ] I have never heard any of the yeshiva students make such a claim, but to do so  would be ridiculous. Can any contemporary Talmid Yeshiva claim to “פרק מעל צוארו עול החשבונות הרבים אשר בקשו בני האדם”?  These are the same Talmidim who whine when their stipends are 2 weeks late? Who think that all businesses are somehow “obligated” to give them a special discount? Who demand equal funding as army-veteran university students? Are any of them on that level?

                Even if we were to grant that the Rambam Levite exemption exists, it certainly is not obligatory upon anyone to exempt himself. Imagine if these “Klei Kodesh” were in the army. Would it not change the nature of the army to a Machaneh  Kadosh  ? How would motivation change, how would morale change? How would the self-image of these Bnei Yeshiva change? The army already has special yeshivishe units. Perhaps they are not perfect, but if they were more heavily populated, they would function better too!

                The original agreement between the Chazon Ish and PM Ben Gurion was intended to free-up a few hundred superior scholars to replenish the rabbinic cadre after the holocaust. Now, the Torato Umanuto exemption has become an almost mandatory burden on all who would call themselves Chareidi. They are pariahs if they don’t “choose” the exemption. So the system is abused, and the newspapers duly report the sophisticated massive fraud. Fictitious students get government stipends to learn in largely virtual yeshivot. Perhaps the Chilul Hashem drives some of the disgust ?

                Are all the Chareidim being stigmatized because of the abuse of the few? Certainly. On the other hand how many of the Talmidei Yeshivot are true matmidim whose time can’t be sacrificed for communal defense? So the 95% who abuse the system give all the others a bad name!

                This leads us to the heart of the problem. The future Talmidei Yeshivot are indoctrinated from a young age, that they are the true defenders of Israel. Without their precious learning we would lose all our wars!  It’s hard to fault the kids; the ideology is axiomatic for them. So, not only do they not serve. Not only do they not respect or thank those who serve (and die…) but they hold themselves superior.  I think we’re very close to an answer to HaRav B’s question.

     Another point raised was “Shevet Levi had the job of davening for Klal Yisrael.”  I’m sure they did.  Unfortunately, these modern-day self-appointed Leviim have neglected that part of their job. The contemporary non-participants would rather stomp out of shule than daven for the soldiers, even the dead ones. They won’t use a siddur that includes a prayer for our soldiers [really, I’ve seen them check]. I had one guy leave the ammud as shatz one Shabbat [and then the building] when asked to say the mishbarach for the soldiers- in the middle of a war! Yes, in America, there’s more of a chance that the Chareidim will pray for the soldiers, there’s less of a chance that the youth might be tempted to be one. Yet still, those shules that do daven for the soldiers are few.

There’s a strange paradox here.  On the one hand, the individual Talmid Yeshiva can’t be faulted for doing what absolutely everyone around him is doing, what he has been trained to do since birth.  It would be quite radical for him to do otherwise.  Indeed, the few charedim who do join the army probably are trying to get out of the charedi system anyway.  On the other hand, many in the younger charedi leadership have told me that they know that what they are doing is probably wrong, definitely causing friction, and unlikely to last in the long-term.  But they see themselves powerless to change anything; the “street” won’t let them.  So the “street” doesn’t bear personal responsibility, but is responsible for the perpetuation of an intolerable situation that guarantees animosity.  

                We should also bear in mind something very important psychologically- who else doesn’t serve? The Arabs. Who else claims to hate the state and wishes for it to disappear- ibid

Simplistic? Yes. But herds think simplistically.

                To close, I too, would like to quote our parsha: האחיכם יבאו למלחמה ואתם תשבו פה?!

Massei, Bamidbar 35:19. The Goel HaDam: Vigilantism and the Court

Bamidbar 35:19  גואל הדם, הוא ימית את-הרוצח

Under the rule of Goel HaDam, if a man kills as a result of insufficient caution (akin to involuntary manslaughter), relatives of the victim are not prevented from killing their relative's killer.

The question is, to what degree and in what sense is this act extra-judicial.  By extra-judicial I mean that this act is not sanctioned by the Beis Din, but only not interfered with, or not punished.  


There is a machlokes between the Ketzos (2:1) and the Tumim whether the rule of Goel HaDam applies today, namely, without a determination of law by a court that is empowered to judge capital cases.

First the Xos brings the Tumim's opinion that the legal entitlement of the Goel HaDam occurs only upon a decision of the Beis Din to so empower him.  The Tumim bases his opinion on the words of the Rambam in 1 Rotzei'ach 5:  

רוצח שהרג בזדון--אין ממיתין אותו העדים ולא הרואים אותו, עד שיבואו לבית דין וידינוהו למיתה:  שנאמר "ולא ימות הרוצח, עד עומדו לפני העדה למשפט" (במדבר לה,יב).  והוא הדין לכל מחוייבי מיתת בית דין שעברו ועשו, שאין ממיתין אותן עד שייגמר דינם בבית דין.

where the Rambam says that a man who killed with intent is not killed until he the Beis Din finds him liable for capital punishment.

The Ktzos argues and says no such empowerment is necessary; being a Goel HaDam is an extra-judicial status.  The Rambam the Tumim brought is not talking about the Go'el Hadam, it is talking about court administered punishment.  (He also notes that the Rambam and Rashi argue about the extent of the law of Goel HaDam:  Rashi applies it even to inadvertant but negligent manslaughter, while the Rambam requires some degree of criminal negligence.)  The Ktzos does, however, agree that it is possible that a court's involvement is necessary simply to establish the facts of the case- על כל פנים בעינן קבלת עדים להודיע אמיתת הדבר שהרגו הרוצח.

Reb Shmuel Rozovsky, in his shiurim on Makkos, disagrees with the Xos' interpretation of the Tumim.  It is possible that the Tumim is saying that Goel HaDam is a MITZVA only when the court determines that the killing was intentional but a procedural barrier to capital punishment prevents justice from being done.  The Tumim might agree with the Ketzos that even in other cases, and even without a finding by the court, the Goel HaDam would not be guilty of a capital crime if he killed the Rotzei'ach.  Pattur- yes, maybe even a Reshus, but Mitzva- no.

This reminds us of the Mishna L'Melech (1 Rotzei'ach 15):

הרואה רודף אחר חבירו להורגו כו' ויכול להציל ולא הציל ה"ז ביטל מצות עשה כו'. נסתפקתי ברוצח בשגגה שיש רשות לגואל הדם להורגו אם נתאמץ הרוצח והרג לגואל הדם אם נהרג עליו. ומסתברא דאינו נהרג עליו וסמך לדברי זמרי דאמרינן [סנהדרין פ"ב.] נהפך זמרי והרג לפנחס אין נהרג עליו ועדיין אין בידי ראיה מכרחת לזה. וכן נסתפקתי ברודף אחר חבירו להורגו וכן רודף אחר הערוה שניתן להצילו בנפשו אם נתאמץ הרודף והרג את המציל אם נהרג עליו. ונראה דבאלו נהרג עליו דדוקא גבי זמרי דליכא מצוה גבי פנחס אלא רשות אמרינן נהפך זמרי והרגו לפנחס אינו נהרג אבל רודף אחר חבירו או אחר הערוה דאיכא מצוה להצילו וכמ"ש רבינו אם הרג רודף למציל נהרג עליו. וכן יש לדקדק מדברי רי"ו ז"ל במישרים נל"א ח"ב שכתב ואם הבועל נהפך והרגו לקנאי אפילו בשעת מעשה אינו נהרג כי רודף היה הקנאי כי אינו מצוה להרגו אלא רשות בעלמא ע"כ. הרי שתלה הדבר לפי שאינו מצוה להורגו ודוק. ורוצח בשגגה דינו כדין בועל ארמית שהרי רשות היא ביד גואל הדם ולא מצוה ודוק:

that discusses the killer's right of self defense against the Go'el HaDam.  There is another category of sins that trigger the right of a Kanna'i to kill the malefactor (Sanhedrin 81b).  These include the example in last week's parsha of Pinchas killing Zimri during his act of publicly consorting with Kozbi, a pagan woman. (הגונב את הקסוה והמקלל בקוסם והבועל ארמית קנאין פוגעין)  In this latter category, the malefactor is entitled to defend his life from the Kana'i (such that if he would know that he is threatened by the kana'i, and he raised a gun and said he was going to kill him if he didn't desist from his kana'us, and witnesses told him that to defend himself would be a capital sin, and he killed the threatening kana'i, he would be held legally blameless.)  Obviously, no such right of self defense exists where a court-appointed executioner is punishing a sinner.

Clearly, then, the rule of Kana'im is totally extra-judicial.  What about Goel Hadam?  Does the Rotzei'ach have the right of self defense?  Will the court interfere if he hires mercenaries, or enlists his friends, and creates a militia to defend him from the Goel Hadam?  And does the rule of Goel Hadam pertain in out times, when our Batei Din are no longer empowered to judge capital cases?  

The Mishna L'Melech says that Goel HaDam is like the Kanai ONLY where the Goel HaDam is merely PERMITTED to kill, where it is a reshus- namely, where he is allowed to kill someone who is guilty only of involuntary manslaughter.  But where the Goel HaDam's act is a mitzva- where the man killed intentionally but with only one witness or without legal warning- his target has no legal right of self defense.  If he protected himself by killing the Goel HaDam, he has committed a capital offense.

So it seems that the Xos makes a general rule of Reshus for every Goel HaDam.  According to Reb Shmuel Rozovsky, the Tumim agrees with the Ketzos but holds that the additional status of Mitzva vests only after a finding by the Beis Din.

In light of all of this, I find Reb Meir Simcha's words interesting.  Reb Meir Simcha (8 Chovel U'Mazik 12) says:

אולם התבוננתי כי כ״ז טעות, דכל זמן שלא העידו עליו עדים אסור להורגו אף לגואל הדם, ודוקא מזיד דיתחייב בב״ד ע״י מעשה זו פטור, אבל שוגג דאינו חייב בב״ד, רק שרשות ביד גואל הדם א״כ כ״ז דלא העידו עליו עדים אסור לגואל הדם להורגו..... ועיין בקצות ס'ק ב׳ ודוק :

It appears that Reb Meir Simcha learns that where the Goel has a mitzva, namely, where the killing was in some way criminal, then the Goel can proceed without any involvement of the Beis Din.  Only where the killing was inadvertent (although negligent) must the Goel wait for permission from Beis Din.  The logic is that in the former case, where it's a mitzva, that mitzva exists irrespective of Beis Din.  Where it is only a reshus, the weak status of reshus requires creation by a Beis Din.  Mitzva is between man and Hashem.  Reshus is a matter of the relationships within society, and it is a creation of the Beis Din.

So I want to point out something interesting about the characterization of the act of the Goel as respectively a Reshus or a Mitzva.

• In Makkos 10b, Rav Huna says that if the Goel finds the Rotzeiach outside the Ir Miklat and kills him, he is Pattur.  אמר רב הונא רוצח שגלה לעיר מקלט ומצאו גואל הדם והרגו פטור.  The implication is that he is merely pattur, but he has no mitzva.  
• The Mishna on 11b brings a Machlokes Reb Akiva and Reb Yosi HaGlili as to whether the Goel that finds the Rotzeiach outside the Ir Miklat has a mitzva or a reshus to kill him. רוצח שיצא חוץ לתחום ומצאו גואל הדם רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר מצוה ביד גואל הדם ורשות ביד כל אדם רבי עקיבא אומר רשות ביד גואל הדם וכל אדם חייבין עליו .  
• It appears that Rav Huna is consistent only with Reb Akiva's opinion, which is impossible, because the Gemara would have noted that.  

The Divrei Yechezkel (which I am reprinting pursuant to my father zatzal's will if the twit who thinks he owns the rights doesn't create too many problems) in 23:8 and slightly differently in the Chazon Ish in Likutim 23 to Makkos 10b both say that Rav Huna's expression Pattur only applies where the Rotzei'ach fled to the Ir Miklat before any decision by the Beis Din.  The Machlokes Reb Akiva and Reb Yosi HaGlili is where Beis Din already paskened Galus on the Rotzei'ach, and then he left the Ir Miklat.



Here is the Divrei Yechezkel, albeit messed up by the OCR. Good luck figuring it out.

איברא יקישיא זי מעיקרא ליחא לפמ״ש הרמכ״ס (פ״ה ממצח  הל״מ) וז״ל רוצח כשגגה שהרגו גואל הים חין לחחום  מיד מקלטו פמור שנאמר. ולו אין משפע מוח אחי ההורגו כדרך  קייס שיכנס לעיר מקלמ או שהרגו כחזירחו מם השנים ששוממן

 איחי, נכנס לעיר מקלמי ייצא חון לחחימה כזמן הר״ז החיר עצמי  למיחה ורשוח לגואל הדס להרגו יאם הרגי כל אדם אק חייבין עליי  שנאמר אין לו דם עכ״ל והמחכאר מזה דחרי דיני איכא כגואל הדם  א) קידם שקלטו עיר מקלעו אסור לגואל הדס להורגו אלא ראם  הרגו פטור מקרא דולו אק משפט מומ ט ימס לבכו וכו יאס הרגי  כל אדם מייבק עליו דהך פטורא דכי ימס לככו בגואל הדס לבד קאי  ב) לאמר שיצא מגבול עיר מקלטו בזדון הר״ז המיר עצמו למיהה  ורשוה כיד גואל הדם להורגו וגס כל אדם אין מייגק מליו מקרא  דאין לו דם והוא מדברי הסוספמא (פ״כ דמכוה) יעו״ש וככר  נחכאר אצלנו כמק״א לבאר יהם שני מנים נפרדים יקודם שהגיס  לערי מקלט לא הוחר דמו של הרוצח כלל אלא יהגואל הרס פטור  מעונש לכד וכעין אנוס הוא מקרא דכי יחס לבכי אכל עוכר כלא  תרצח ומשו״ה כל אדם ההורגו חייכ וזהו נלמד מהסוגיא  דמטח  ודף י׳ ע״כ) דשקיל וטרי שם אם גואל הדם נהרג מליו אמנם  לאחר שהגיע לעיר מקלעי ייצא הוחר דמו מצד היציאה כמזיד ושוכ  אק כאן איסור רציחה כלל ופליגי כזה ריה״ג יר״ע אם מציה כגואל  הים אי רשיח ועכ״פ לט״ע הוחר דמו שאין כאן איסור רציחה כלל  ואפילו לכל אדם דאסורק להורגו אינו כלל מחורח רציחה יעיק  ריסב״א כמכוח (דף י״כ) ומשמה כל אדם אק נהרגין מליו ומה״ס  פריד אהך דינא דרב הונא (שם מ< י׳) ממחניחיז דגואל הדם נהרג  סליו קודם שהגיע לעיר מקלעו ולא קשי׳ ליה מפלוגח׳ דריה״ג ורכנן  ועיי״ש כפי׳ ר״ח וכריםכ״א כשם הרמ״ה והרא״ה וכ״ז מוכרח  מםיגיית הש״ס (שם) מכמה ראייח ואכמ׳׳ל, ולפ״ז ל״ש לומר  דמצח בשוגג יפער מחורח קלב״מ כתה דיש עליו דין מיחה מ״י  גואל הדם טון דגואל הדס אסור להרגו קודם שנכנס לעיר מקלעו  אלא דאם הרגי פסיר מתורח אנוס נמצא דאין זה קלכ״מ דדוקא  רשיח להרגו פוטר מדין קלכ״מ ומה דהוחר דמו אח״כ כשיוצא מעיר  מקלעו הוא חיוב חדש שנעשה ע״י היציאה שאח״כ למ״ד מצוה מצוה  ולמ״ו רשוח רשוח ואס ישכר כלים בשמח יציאחו מערי מקלט אז  שייך שפיר קלכ״מ.

Here is the Chazon Ish, which I mostly fixed up. The Chazon Ish distinguishes between a Hora'a of Beis Din and a Psak of Beis Din.

וחלוקה הב׳ שפגעו גוה״ד קדם פסק דין, ובזה אפשר דמודה  ר״ה דנהרג עליו, שהרי עדיין לא נתברר שהוא בר  גלות, והרבה תנאים בעינן לחיוב גלות כגון דקדוק אופן ההריגה דלמא היה קרוב לאונס ודלמא יסרו לדבר מצוה, ודלמא פרכס,  ודלמא אין עדים בדבר ועוד כיו״ב  שצריך פסק ב״ד, ואף אם יתברר אח״כ שהיה בר גלות לא מפטר גוה״ד דבשעה שהרגו  עדיין לאו בר גלות הוא ולאו בר קטלא הוא כדאמר לעיל ה׳ אי,  אכל בר״מ פ״ה ה״י כתב דאחד ההורגו בדרך קדם שיכנס לעיר מקלט, משמע אפי׳ קדם גמר דין, והדבר מוכח בגמ׳ סנהדרין  מ׳׳ע א׳ [כמש״כ חזו״א חו״מ סי׳ י״ז] והיינו דמזיד דלא סגי  לי׳ בגלות ג״נ לא עדיף משוגג דאין גוה״ד נהרג עליו כמש״כ  הר״מ פ״ו מה׳ רוצח ה״ה, והגה יואב הרגו קודם שהעמיד את אבנר לפני  ב״ד לדונו דביד גוה״ד להרגו ולמפטר, ואם איתא  דבשוגג כה״ג נהרג עליו אין כאן ילפותא למפטר גוה״ד ברוצח במזיד,  אלא ע״כ ר״ה דרריש לקרא ולו אין משפט מות [דברים י״ט ף]  קאי אפי׳ קדם גמר דין דלענין למפטר גוה״ד סגי בהוראה  וכשיתברר אחר כן שהיה בר גלות גוה״ד פטור ומזה ילפינן גם  מזיד, ונראה לפ״ז דר״ה סבר ורוצח שיצא במזיו ומצאו גוה״ד והרגו פטור דלא כר״א דאמר לק׳ י״ב א׳ דגם מצא במזיד צריך פסק בית דין להתיר את גואל הדס להרגו שהרי צריך  בירור שמא הוא תוך התחוס ושמא היה בשוגג, וכיון לצריך פסק דין לא סגי במה שיתברר אחר כך אלא קדם גמר דין  עדיין לאו בר קטלא הוא, והכי פסק רב שם בגמ׳, אבל ר״ה  נראה דלא ס״ל הכי, דלא מסתבר שיהא בתחילתו קל הריגתו יותר מיצא במזיד.

Stand Your Ground and Rodef. התורה אמרה אם בא להורגך השכם להורגו

George Zimmerman has been in the news lately.  He killed an assailant, and, because he was less colored than his young assailant, a national brouhaha has arisen over whether the circumstances justified the killing.  Considering the centrality of color and allegations of racism in this case, this is a classic example of a "hue and cry."  In any case: In Florida, where this occurred, there is what is called a "Stand Your Ground" law, which allows a person who is threatened to react with deadly force even if he could theoretically avert the danger by retreating.  One of the sources for this law is the Supreme Court decision Brown v. United States - 256 U.S. 335 (1921).  Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the following:

Many respectable writers agree that, if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground, and that, if he kills him, he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self-defense. That has been the decision of this Court. Beard v. United States, 158 U. S. 559. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore, in this Court at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant, rather than to kill him. 

In the Halacha, there is a rule that one may use deadly force against an assailant's threat to life, whether one's own life or someone else's.  As the Gemara says, (Sanhedrin 72a),  אם בא להורגך השכם להורגו. If, however, one can avert the threat by injuring the assailant, it is a capital crime to kill the assailant.    There are many that hold that this rule of lesser force only applies to a third party, but it does not apply to the threatened victim himself.  In other words, that the person who is threatened can use deadly force even where lesser force would end the threat.  I find it interesting that the reasoning Justice Holmes used is reminiscent of that which we find in the Poskim.

Here is a compendium of opinions on the Halacha that I found.

 הצלת הרודף באחד מאיבריו אחת ההלכות הידועות בדיני ההגנה העצמית מתירה להשתמש בכוח ממית רק כשאין דרך אחרת. בהלכה ידוע הדבר כאפשרות להציל "באחד מאיבריו". כלומר, המציל חייב לנסות לפגוע ברודף באחד מאיבריו לפני שיהרגנו, כמו שנאמר  בתלמוד : רבי יונתן בן שאול אומר: רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו להורגו ויכול להצילו באחד מאבריו, ולא הציל, נהרג עליו.

  ונשאלת השאלה גם כאן: היש הבדל בין המציל לבין הנרדף


 המשנה למלך אומר בשם הריב"ש שהנרדף יכול להציל את עצמו בנפשו של הרודף גם בלא התראה, "לפי שהוא בהול על נפשו להציל עצמו, ולא חייבוהו להתרות". מכאן חידש "משנה למלך" שהלכת הצלה באחד מאיבריו נאמרה במציל, אך לא בנרדף עצמו. וזה לשונו :  הא דאמרינן, דאם יכולין להציל באחד מאבריו של רודף, שאין הורגין אותו, שדין זה לא נאמר אלא באיש  אחר הבא להציל, אבל הנרדף איננו מדקדק בזה. חובל ומזיק, פרק ח, הלכה י

הלכת "משנה למלך" היא חדשנית ביחס ויש מן האחרונים שניסו למצוא לה ראיות. "חזון איש" הביא לה ראיה ממעשה זמרי ופינחס : זמרי בא שלא כדין על כזבי בת צור נשיא מדין, ונהרג על ידי פינחס. לפי התלמוד, נהרג זמרי בידי פינחס במעשה קנאות ולא במעשה שפינחס היה חייב לעשותו מן הדין. לכן רשאי היה זמרי לפגוע בפינחס ולהרגו, משום שרדפו פינחס. וזה לשון התלמוד בעניין זה 
אמר רבה בר בר חנה, אמר רבי יוחנן: הבא לימלך, אין מורין לו. ולא עוד, אלא שאם פירש זמרי, והרגו פנחס, נהרג עליו. נהפך זמרי והרגו לפנחס, אין נהרג עליו, שהרי רודף הוא. סנהדרין פב ע"א


אולם נשאלת השאלה: האם מותר היה לזמרי להרוג את פינחס אף אם פינחס רודפו? הרי הייתה לזמרי דרך קלה יותר להגן
 על עצמו, לפרוש מהמדינית ולהפסיק את מעשהו עמה, וממילא לא ניתן היה להרגו. אלא שלדברי "חזון איש", מאחר שלא נדרש הדבר מזמרי, יש בכך משום ראיה לדעת "משנה למלך". מותר לנרדף להגן על עצמו ולהמית את הרודף מבלי לדקדק 
עמו, שלא כפי שמחויב לעשות מי שמציל את הזולת.

וכן פסק גם הרב קוק בעניין זה 
מ"מ פשוט הוא שהנרדף יכול להציל את עצמו בנפש הרודף. ואפילו עובר לגבי אשה קרא הרמב"ם רודף פ"א מה' רוצח, ולא ממעט אלא שאחרים אין יכולין לדחות נפש מפני נפש (משהוציא ראשו). אבל הנרדף ודאי יכול הוא להציל את נפשו. והפוסקים כתבו דאפילו להציל באחד מאבריו אין צריך לדקדק הנרדף עצמו. 


גישות אחרות 


יש להדגיש שלא כל הדעות תואמות לדעה שהובעה כאן. עניין ההבדלים בין הגנה עצמית להגנת הזולת (כמו גם כל דין רודף), נתון במחלוקת, ויש בו דעות רבות ומגוונות. יש מי שקראו תגר על עצם ההבחנה בין זכות הנרדף לחובת המציל, וטענו שמדובר בזכויות זהות לחלוטין. לשיטתם אין הנרדף רשאי לפעול יותר ממה שמותר למציל. פרימר דרך משל טוען שהרחבה זו היא מאוחרת מאוד, ואין לה אסמכתה בדברי הראשונים . אולם גם הוא מסכים שהרבה מן האחרונים תמכו בהרחבה זו, וקשה להתעלם מדעתם. 

 There was also this interesting point from Reb Moshe there:

 ההבחנה בין המציל לנרדף מוסברת היטב בדברי הרב משה פיינשטיין שנאמרו אמנם בהקשר אחר שהנרדף עצמו, שמותר להרוג את הרודף, אינו מצד מצות הצלה, אלא הוא היתר אחר, שאינו מחוייב להניח את האחר להורגו אף באופן שאי אפשר לו כשלא יהרגהו, וזהו דין דהשכם להרגו שעל הנרדף לא מדין ההיתר שלכל אדם