Parshat Emor-The Mitzva of Kiddush Hashem-Does it apply to a ‘katan’?

The Mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem appears in our parsha as follows:

לב  וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ, אֶת-שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי, וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי, בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:  אֲנִי יְהוָה, מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם.

32 And ye shall not profane My holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD who hallow you,

Rashi points out that:

רש"י ויקרא פרק כב פסוק לב

וכשהוא מוסר עצמו, ימסור עצמו על מנת למות, שכל המוסר עצמו על מנת הנס, אין עושין לו נס,

This Mitzvah is the obligation to be prepared to give up one’s life for the sake of God and not expecting a miracle to occur.

In discussing various aspects of this Mitzvah, R’Yaakov Kaminetsky raises an interesting question on the wording of the pasuk. Why doesn’t it say”and you shall sanctify Me’ in an active form, but rather ‘and I shall be sanctified’  וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי, in the passive form? R’ Yaakov answers the question with a major chiddush. The Mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem is different from every other Mitzvah in the Torah. With all other Mitzvoth, the purpose is that the person commanded should perform the will of God e.g. in the case of Matzah it is an active command to eat Matzah, with Sukka the Mitzvah is to dwell in the Sukka etc. However with this special Mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem, the Mitzvah is that God’s name be sanctified. What practical difference does this definition make?

The difference is clear when it comes to ketanim/pre Bar/Bat Mitzva children, who also are obligated in this unique Mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem. Why is this so? Everyone has the obligation to make sure that this sanctification comes about, including children. This is why the word is passive, as it is the result of the Mitzvah which is important here and this makes it applicable to every Jewish man, woman and child.

This principle is found in the Rambam, in Hilchot Yesodei Hatorah ch. 5, Halacha 1.

רמב"ם הלכות יסודי התורה פרק ה הלכה א

כל בית ישראל מצווין על קדוש השם הגדול הזה שנאמר ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל, ומוזהרין שלא לחללו שנאמר ולא תחללו את שם קדשי, כיצד כשיעמוד עובד כוכבים ויאנוס את ישראל לעבור על אחת מכל מצות האמורות בתורה או יהרגנו יעבור ואל יהרג שנאמר במצות אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם, וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם, ואם מת ולא עבר הרי זה מתחייב בנפשו.

The Rambam uses an expression which is not found with any other Mitzvah: ‘the whole house of Israel is commanded to sanctify God’s name……..I shall be sanctified amongst the children of Israel’.The expression ‘house of Israel’ is a reference to the pasuk we say in Hallel:

תהלים פרק קטו

(יב) יְקֹוָק֘ זְכָרָ֪נוּ יְבָ֫רֵ֥ךְ יְ֭בָרֵךְ אֶת־בֵּ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְ֝בָרֵ֗ךְ אֶת־בֵּ֥ית אַהֲרֹֽן:

(יג) יְ֭בָרֵךְ יִרְאֵ֣י יְקֹוָ֑ק הַ֝קְּטַנִּ֗ים עִם־הַגְּדֹלִֽים:

where the term ‘Beit Yisrael’ is defined as “the adults and the children’. This is a clear proof to Rabbi Kaminetsky’s premise that the Mitzvah also applies to every Jewish child. There is another proof from Rambam’s Sefer Hamitzvot-Mitzva #9 where he defines the issue of Kiddush Hashem and he makes reference to a verse in the book of Isaiah which mentions children as being part of the Mitzva:

ספר המצוות לרמב"ם מצות עשה ט

והוא אמרו לא עתה יבוש יעקב ולא עתה פניו יחורו כי בראותו ילדיו מעשה ידי בקרבו יקדישו שמי

This is another reminder that the Mitzvah devolves upon minors as well as adults, as shown above. This becomes the explanation for the martyrdom of the Jews in the Middle ages who were prepared to see their children be killed and not to become converted to Christianity. For the adults this was a case of ‘yehareig ve’al yaavor’ but what allowance was there to sacrifice their children? The answer is as above, that Kiddush Hashem was applicable, even to the youngest child.

Rabbi Isaac Bernstein zal adds that the same arguments are found in a remarkable remnant of a sefer which was sent by Rabbi Moshe Lau zal, (the father of Rabbi Yisrael Lau shlita) who was killed by the Nazis in 1943. He wrote a book about the Mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem and had sent the first page to the Tchebiner Rav zal who was in Jerusalem, for his haskamah. The rest of the book was lost in the war, but the Tchebiner Rav returned the page to the Lau children after the war, when they arrived in Eretz Yisrael. In this short extract Rav Moshe Lau refers to the same topic of Kiddush Hashem for minors and he brings the same proofs as Rabbi Kaminetsky, namely the use of the passive וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי,, and also the words of the Rambam:   כל בית ישראל as found in the above explanation. This is truly a great memorial to Rabbi Moshe Lau zal and a symbol of the power of Torah to rise above tragedy and remain with us after such a terrible destruction of Jewish life.

I would like to add a footnote to this discussion. There is a comment found in the Daat Zekanim commentary on Parshat Noach (ch 9 v.5)

 ואך את דמכם וגו'. אזהרה לחונק עצמו ואמרו בב"ר יכול אפי' כחנניה מישאל ועזריה ת"ל אך פירוש יכול אפילו כמו אלו שמסרו עצמן לקדוש השם שלא יוכל לחבול בעצמו אם הוא ירא שלא יוכל בעצמו לעמוד בנסיון ת"ל אך כי בשעת השמד יכול למסור עצמו למיתה ולהרוג עצמו. וכן בשאול בן קיש שאמר לנערו שלוף חרבך ודקרני בה וכו' ת"ל אך שאם ירא אדם שמא יעשו לו יסורין קשים שלא יוכל לסבול ולעמוד בנסיון שיכול להרוג את עצמו. ומכאן מביאין ראיה אותן ששוחטין התינוק בשעת הגזירה. ויש שאוסרין ומפרשים כן יכול כחנניה וחבריו שכבר נמסרו למיתה ת"ל אך אבל אינו יכול להרוג את עצמו יכול כשאול שמסר עצמו למיתה ת"ל אך פי' שאינו יכול לחבול בעצמו כלל ושאול שלא ברשות חכמים עשה מהר"ש בר אברהם המכונה אוכמן. ומעשה ברב אחד ששחט הרבה תינוקות בשעת השמד כי היה ירא שיעבירום על דת והיה רב אחד עמו והיה כועס עליו ביותר וקראו רוצח והוא לא היה חושש. ואמר אותו רב אם כדברי יהרג אותו רב במיתה משונה וכן היה שתפסוהו עכו"ם והיו פושטין עורו ונותנין חול בין העור והבשר ואחר כך נתבטלה הגזרה ואם לא שחט אותן התינוקות היו ניצולין:ואך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש,

“however for your own life-blood I will demand an accounting;” this is to be understood as an accounting for their death by people who deliberately strangle themselves as an act of suicide, avoiding the shedding of their blood in the process. B’reshit Rabbah, 34,13, explains the need for this verse as being that we might think that when Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah, (Daniel chapter 3 where their Babylonian names are used) agreed to be thrown into a fiery pit, clearly committing suicide, albeit as an act of sanctifying the name of the Lord, this was forbidden also. The reason that this verse was introduced by the word: אך, was to exclude such suicides, even that of King Sha-ul, who did not want to give the Philistines the satisfaction of having killed a king who had been crowned with the approval of the Lord. (Samuel I 31:4) In both of these instances the victims did not execute themselves but were executed or meant to be executed by someone else. Committing suicide with one’s own hands is an absolute no no. According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon bar Avraham, also known as אוכמן, the Rabbis did not make allowances for what King Sha-ul had done. There is a true story of a Rabbi, who at the time of persecutions of Jews practicing their faith, personally killed many young Jewish children in order to forestall the Christians from raising them in the Christian faith. One of Rabbinical colleagues was very angry at that Rabbi on that account, referring to him as a murderer. The first Rabbi did not heed the second Rabbi’s warning not to become a murderer. Thereupon the Rabbi opposed to killing the infants said that if he had been right, his colleague would die a violent and painful death. Not only did the gentiles seize and kill that Rabbi-(who had killed the infants), but they stripped off his skin and placed sand between it and his flesh. Shortly thereafter, the decree forbidding the Jews to practice their faith was cancelled. If the first Rabbi had not killed all the infants, they would have been saved when the decree was cancelled.

Clearly this school of Rabbis disagree with the above conclusion, in that the Rabbi who took it upon himself to kill the infants was later punished in a terrible way. In order to see the counterpoint view (of Daat Zekanim) explained , Rav Yisrael Lau has written an excellent article which was published in the same journal as his father’s article (Moriah:Shevat 5748-Jerusalem). Also there is an extensive discussion found in the sefer Torat Hamoadim from Rabbi Shlomo Goren zal on the whole topic of Kiddush Hashem.

May we pray that these halachot always stay in the realm of academic discussion and not become again halacha lema’aseh, as they have been so many times in our history.