[Avodah] Better to die

[Ben Bradley via Avodah]

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote:
: The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a
: conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of
: YaVY...

Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because
there is no actual issur la'avor.

I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on pain of yeihareig?  Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where there's an issur involved? That's why I'm suggesting that since it's on pain of yeihareig then we know there must an issur la'avor so the point of the sugya is to work out what that is.
The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below.

:                                              Since when is conversation
: hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes
: the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation
: carries the din YvAY.

I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that
trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering
a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from
hirhurim.

>From hirhurim?  Chazal were gozer yeihareig on hirhurei aveira? If that were true we'd find the same din in a lot of other places. Which is why is seems to me we must be dealing with something else here.

And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA:
: That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya,
: causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of
: hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and
: certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai?
:
: The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya
: due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc.

It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing
assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the
downward character spiral.

Me'heicha teisi that we're dealing with Hilkhos De'os here? Where do you find a din of yeihareig in Hilchos De'os?
Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does.
Your partially stated assumption is that this din in both man d'amrim is d'rabanan. Rambam strongly implies otherwise.

Kol tuv

Ben


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170606/04038a24/attachment-0002.htm>