[Avodah] Dying al Kiddush Hashem

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 09:39:45PM EST, R Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
: On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 18:43:58 -0500 Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:
:> Rambam, in Maamar Qiddush Hashem (Mosad haRav Kook 1960 edition of
:> Igeros haRambam pg. 60) writes explicitly that any Jew killed for being
:> a Jew even if it has nothing to do with conversion, is called 'qadosh'.

: Rambam does *not* say that; in fact, he say *exactly the opposite*!

You're correct. I lost context. The Rambam I was looking at was actually
speaking of someone killed for doing something Jewish, eg the gemara's
case of changing shoelaces (Sanhedrin 74b). Definitely a matter of choice.

REED, as I already wrote, made it about choice -- choice of how to die,
and how one accepts one's fate. This allows us to consider someone who
died for being a Jew who didn't actually get a choice whether to live
or die still as a qadosh.

If you accept that, then I would say the gemara of "harei at mequdeshes
li al menas she'ani tzadiq" would require us to assume that maybe he
died with hirhurei teshuvah in mind. Qal vachomer: If we are to assume
this in the case of marriage, al achas kamah vekamah in a case where
"there are no atheists in the foxhole".

Among those who don't require choice, we just saw (I paused after that
last sentence to check the queue and approved RJH's post) RAS and RYBS,
and I already noted the Nesivos Shalom saying that qiddush hasheim
could be based on national choice even if this person had no say in
the matter. And RJR cited R' Moshe Sternbach. I mentioned R' Schach,
who described a yeshiva bacher killed in yeshiva as a "qadosh" -- and
there we don't even know the motive! Notice, though, that none of these
are "classical" sources, which is what RYG wrote about.

So, is there a classical source?

The Crusades might qualify as a borderline case. When the Crusaders
killed the Jews of Mainz, R' Eliezer ben Nasan described it as "cruel
foreigners, fierce and swift, Frenchmen and Germans...[who] put crosses
on their clothing and were more plentiful than locusts on the face of
the earth." (quoting Norman Gold "The Jews in Medieval Normandy", via
wikipedia; the quote is a paraphrase of Chavaquq 1:6). "...Taf venashim
beyom echad, ushelalam lavoz."

Similarly the sacking of the Jewish quarter in London was orchestrated by
Richard de Malbis, who owed money to R' Aharon miLincoln. They attacked
starting at the home of R' Baruch miLondon (a baal Tosafos and a business
agent of RAmL). The ghetto was torched, people killed in the streets,
women raped, etc... They fled to York Castle, and that story's ending
is infamous.

(R' Yosef miYork was a friend of the local duke's and his benefactor,
King John -- yes, the King John villified in Robin Hood stories. Richard
was out of the country fighting the Crusades when John tried to assume the
throne. John therefore had us as likely allies. But back to the point...)

England had some exceptions, where people were given a choice. And a
year after the crusaders left, Henry IV let "conversos" who wanted
to return to Yahadus. He didn't believe forced baptism really converted
anyone.

But by the time they got to Germany? Much of the killing of the crusaders
were wholesale slaughter of the entire quarter. Men thirsty for blood and
motivated by lust aren't likely to be stopping each one and demanding
"Convert or Die!" Maybe some yechidei segulah had the option of outright
refusing Yeishu, but it seems plausible to me that the masses did not.

The Jews of Speyer were killed in one day, Shabbos 8 Iyyar 1095, as were
most of the Jews of Worms (most of the rest were killed a week later
during Shacharis, after hiding out in a castle for a week). The Jews of
Cologne were given a choice -- as a group, the leadership spoke for
them all. Someone who was weak wasn't given a chance to buck the group.

Yes, in most cases the people had the option of converting in the days
or hours before the attack. But can we say they chose death rather than
conversion? After all, had they really internalized the possibility that
they would be facing those choices, why didn't they flee?

And so, I would argue (and have before, but at less length) that the
majority of the people we describe most Shabbasos as "qehillos haqodesh
shemaseru nafsham al qiddushas hasheim" didn't actually choose Yahadus
over death.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

PS: Notice again that I write "qiddusheis hasheim". The expressions
"qiddush hasheim" and "chillul hasheim" predate the use of "Hashem" as a
qinui. They mean "the name" or "the reputation", not the sanctification
or desecration of G-d Himself. I therefore transliterated in my usual
style, and without capitalization, rather than use the Yinglish "Hashem".

Saying "qiddush Hashem" opens questions of how one can talk about
changes in G-d.

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
micha at aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rabbi Israel Salanter