---

SMG

It is a positive Mitzva to sanctify his great name, as it says[i] ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל. Isn’t it self-understood from the first half of the verse ולא תחללו את שם קדשי – the prohibition against desecration already includes the requirement to sanctify, what then does ונקדשתי teach us? The answer is, dedicate your life to the sanctification of G‑d’s name.

• If indeed there is a prohibition against the desecration of G‑d’s name (negative Mitzva #2) as stated in the first half of the verse ולא תחללו את שם קדשי ונקדשתי which includes the automatic requirement of sanctifying G‑d’s name, what then is this positive Mitzva?

The Gemara[ii] states that [when the only choice is between a violation of the Mitzvos and death] all Mitzvos should be transgressed rather than allowing oneself to be killed – with the exception of the following three prohibitions:

1. Idolatry
2. Adultery (all forbidden sexual acts – including rape)
3. Murder

The Gemara concludes there, that during times when Jews are being persecuted specifically to convert to alien religions [not regular antisemitism], that even for the performance of so called ‘light’ Mitzvos one should sacrifice one’s life to uphold – and even when special religious persecution is not being practiced, the allowance to violate a Mitzva rather than being killed applies only in private. But if the violation would be a public one, defined [α] as being known to ten (10) Jews, then even changing the color of shoelaces [for the purpose of complying with idolatrous norms or lack of Tznius] is prohibited to the extent of being killed for it.

When committing to the Mitzva to the extent of self-sacrifice, he should not intend to depend on a miraculous saving, because any who do so will not have a miracle performed for them, and if a miracle is done, then it would erase all previous merits. [The appropriate way to commit is] like the way Ĉananya, Mishael and Azarya did, when they gave themselves over to death as it says[iii] והן לא ידיע להוא לך מלכא די לאלהך לא איתנא פלחין.

---

[i] Vayikra 22:32

[ii] Gem. Sanhedrin 74a

[iii] Daniel 3:18

---

AMUDAY SHLOMO

[α] the source of the definition of public as ten (10) (or more) is from[i] Gemara[1]

… and Rav Ada bar Ahava also stated “from where [do we know] that an individual [praying without accompaniment of a minyan] does not recite Kedusha? As it states ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל, and similarly [the word ת֖וֹךְ is used regarding the failed spies in][ii] הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת. Just like the spies numbered ten (10) [2], so too the verse ונקדשתי בתוך means Kedusha may only be recited with a minyan.

---

[1] Interestingly, this lesson is actually repeated other times in Gemara:

Megillah 23b: Rav Chiya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoĉanan, everything requiring Kedusha [specifically those items listed in the Mishna] must be done in a minyan, as it says ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל and הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת use the same word תוך. And  עדהmeans 10 people as it says in the previous verse Bamidbar 14:27עד מתי לעדה הרעה הזאת.

Rashi on the verse in Bamidbar 14:27 declares definitively that it is from this verse that the rule of a minyan being ten (10) Jews is learnt. Similarly, in Mosif Rashi on Gemara Beraĉos 21b, Rashi extends the discussion in the Gemara to include the derivation from the verse in Bamidbar 14:27. Similarly another time in Gemara Sanhedrin 74b, where the Gemara discusses whether the minyan must be composed of Jews only or not, Mosif Rashi and Masores Hashas both extend the derivation from the verse to include Bamidbar 14:27.

Rashi does not actually define עדה as ten (10) Jews. Proof is the first time this term is used in Shemos 16:22 and even Bamidbar 13:26, Rashi does not comment – since it is missing the key word תוך. Rashi only defines תוך העדה as being the minimum number to qualify as a congregation. Anything larger doesn’t start a second congregation, but rather increases the existing one.

Practical application in Halaĉa leads to the rulings as to whether multiple minyanim can be conducted (with sufficient people) in a single room simultaneously.

And yet, Maharshal chose to use Gemara Beraĉos as the source, where it is not clear that the derivation comes from Bamidbar 14:27 as opposed to Bamidbar 16:21. Possibly, Maharshal could learn that one does not learn a chain-hekish. And since there is no need for the second hekish [since we logically know that there were only ten (10) failed spies – twelve (12) minus כלב and יהושע] he chose Gemara Beraĉos as his source.

There is also a difference between ‘the public’ (a large group of people) and ‘a congregation’ (a large, unified group of people). For the Mitzva of sanctifying G‑d’s name, the public is the definition that matters, whether they form a congregation of not. Which is why he also did not choose Gemara Sanhedrin for his source since that Gemara negates a public composed of Jews and gentiles. But for this Mitzva, perhaps according to Maharshal the definition of public would extend to ten (10) people whether Jewish or not.

[2] There were actually twelve (12) spies, however, the verse is talking about G‑d meting out punishment to the spies who failed. Kalev and Yehoshua were not swayed by the spies’ arguments, and therefore they were not included. Nevertheless, the Torah refers to the remaining ten (10) as a congregation.

It is interesting to note the use of this verse, recording one of the most tragic events in the Chumash, is used to teach the concept of the importance of gathering with a minyan to daven, and that only with a minyan can Kedusha be said. Perhaps to provide the lesson that on all groups of ten (10) Jewish people, the Shechinah rests. Individual righteousness is not a factor.

---

[i] Gem. Beraĉos 21b

[ii] Bamidbar 16:21

---

RASHI

Rashi does not comment on this part of the verse. See negative Mitzva 2

---

Discussion by SMS

This Mitzva is practically taken verbatim from the Gemara[i] which discusses this: Rabbi Yoĉanan stated in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak; in the attic of the house of Nitzah[1], a vote was taken and a conclusion was reached that should one be forced to commit a transgression, he should rather commit the transgression rather than being killed, as it says[ii] וחי בהם one should live in performing the Mitzvos not be killed for them. However, that applies only in private. In public one must give his life for the Mitzvos as it says[iii] ולא תחללו את שם קדשי ונקדשתי.

• This follows Rabbi Eliezer’s teaching who stated from the verse[iv] ואהבת את ה’ אלוקיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאדך – as Rashi on Chumash succinctly puts it, even if G‑d takes your life one must love Him. Here, Rashi elaborates that when the Torah states “and you shall love your G‑d” that implies only your G‑d, and not someone else’s.
• Rebbe further quotes the verse[v] כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו ורצחו נפש כן הדבר הזה and states that this verse teaches that rape (one of the forbidden relationships) is the same as murder, and just like one must kill a murderer to prevent the murder, one must kill a rapist to prevent rape. Further, since rape and murder are therefore comparable, then just like one must sacrifice one’s life rather than murder, one must also sacrifice one’s life rather than commit a rape (or any other forbidden sexual act).
• The Gemara offers a story of someone who went to Rabbah and asked concerning the non-Jewish mayor of the city who ordered the man to murder another, and should he fail, he himself would be killed. Rabbah answered him, rather you should be killed than commit murder, for who may say whose blood is redder.
• When Rav Dimi arrived, he stated in the name of Rabbi Yoĉanan that when Jews are being persecuted this obligation of self-sacrifice applies to every Mitzva, even the lightest one.
• When Ravin arrived, he stated in the name of Rabbi Yoĉanan that this limitation to the major three (3) transgressions is only when the transgression is not public. But if it is, then one must commit one’s life rather than transgress.

Interestingly elsewhere in Gemara[vi] the following story is related, but there it does not ascribe the quote to the meeting in the attic: Ben Dama the nephew of Rabbi Yishmael was bitten by a poisonous snake and a doctor who was a known antagonist to Judaism came and offered to heal him either by using his beliefs in idolatry or by using the medicinal practices of the time, but ascribing their healing powers to various false deities. Rabbi Yishmael prevented him from attempting to heal the boy and quoted וחי בהם one should live in performing the Mitzvos not be killed for them. However, that applies only in private. In public one must give his life for the Mitzvos as it says ולא תחללו את שם קדשי ונקדשתי.

However, Rashi, in quoting the verse on which this entire discussion is based, provides a completely opposite interpretation. Rashi on וחי בהם comments ‘in the world to come’. Obviously not in this world, because one is about to die. Why does Rashi comment differently than the Gemara?

Because, according to Rashi, the Mitzva to sanctify G‑d’s name can only be fulfilled with the commission of one’s life. Otherwise, one is simply fulfilling the negative Mitzva by refraining from the desecration of G‑d’s name.

Furthermore, this Mitzva apparently can only be fulfilled in public, or during times of persecution. This is why Rashi expounds at great length on the verse. “Since it has already stated ולא תחללו what is being taught by the addition of ונקדשתי? [answer] Give yourself and sanctify my name. One might conclude this applies in private, for that reason the verse continues בתוך בני ישראל. When one does give oneself, one should do so to the death, not expecting a miraculous salvation – as told in the story of Ĉananya, Mishael and Azarya[vii] “whether G‑d will save us or not, we will not pray to your G‑d”.

Similarly, Rashi on Daniel follows this line of reasoning and comments on והן לא ידיע that it means they didn’t know ‘whether or not’ G‑d will save our bodies. Because regardless of the outcome, either by dying sanctifying G‑d’s name, or by being saved from Nevuchadnezzar, their souls would be saved.

---

[1] The meeting took place in the attic because at the time – just after the failed Bar Koziva revolt – religious persecution by the Roman’s was extreme even by Roman standards, and the only safe way for the sages to meet was in hiding – as in attics or caves or vineyards.

---

[i] Gem. Sanhedrin 74a

[ii] Vayikra 18:5

[iii] Vayikra 22:32

[iv] Devarim 6:5

[v] Devarim 22:26

[vi] Gem. Avoda Zara 27b

[vii] Daniel 3:18

---