Parshas Emor
1. On the verse in our parsha,1 "ולא תחללו את שם קדשי ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל" ("You shall not desecrate My holy Name, and I shall be sanctified amidst the Children of Israel"), it is stated in Toras Kohanim — after it says there that the meaning of "V'nikdashti" ("and I shall be sanctified") is "מסור את עצמך וקדש שמי" ("Give yourself over and sanctify My Name") ("One might think [this applies even] when alone; therefore the verse states, etc.") —: "מיכן אמרו כל המוסר עצמו על מנת לעשות לו נס אין עושים לו נס ושלא לעשות לו נס עושין לו נס" ("From here they said: Whoever gives himself over on condition that a miracle be done for him, no miracle is done for him; and [whoever gives himself over] not [on condition] that a miracle be done for him, a miracle is done for him"). And it brings two proofs for this: "שכן מצינו בחנני' מישאל ועזרי' שאמרו לנבוכדנצר כו' וכשתפס מרינוס את פפוס ואת לוליינוס אחיו בלודקיא א"ל כו'" ("For so we find with Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah, who said to Nebuchadnezzar, etc.; and when Marinus seized Pappos and his brother Lulianus in Laodicea, he said to them, etc.") (as below, section 3).
Rashi, in his commentary on the Torah, brings the content of the matter in Toras Kohanim (with changes, as below, section 6), and these are his words (after his commentary on "V'lo sechalelu" ("You shall not desecrate"), and after explaining that "V'nikdashti" means "Give yourself over and sanctify My Name . . amidst [the Children of Israel]"): "וכשהוא מוסר עצמו ימסור עצמו ע"מ למות שכל המוסר עצמו ע"מ הנס אין עושין לו נס שכן מצינו בחנני' מישאל ועזרי' שלא מסרו עצמן ע"מ הנס כו'" ("And when he gives himself over, he should give himself over with the intention to die, for whoever gives himself over with the expectation of a miracle, no miracle is done for him; for so we find with Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah, that they did not give themselves over with the expectation of a miracle, etc.").
The Rambam, however, in Sefer HaYad, in the Laws of Yesodei HaTorah,2 where he writes the laws of Kiddush Hashem (sanctification of G‑d's Name), does not cite that when giving one's life for Kiddush Hashem the intention must be "with the intention to die" (based on the words of Toras Kohanim cited above).3
Simply put, it can be said that the Rambam holds that the matter stated in Toras Kohanim is not meant as a condition of the halachic obligation in the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem, but rather as the addition of a new matter, a narrative, and the like. As is emphasized in the wording of Toras Kohanim, "they said: Whoever gives himself over to have a miracle done for him, none is done, etc.; and not to have a miracle done for him, it is done, etc." — the style of a separate statement and of a narrative.4
From the fact, however, that Rashi changes [the wording] and says it in the language of a condition and an instruction on how to fulfill the mitzvah — "and when he gives himself over, he should give himself over with the intention to die"5 — it is understood that Rashi takes the above matter in Toras Kohanim as a law in the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem. (Moreover: since Rashi brings it in his commentary on the Torah — regarding which [he states] "אני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו של מקרא" ("I have come only [to explain] the plain meaning of Scripture")6 — this is proof that it is a law that pertains to understanding the plain meaning of the verse.)
And it can be said that the dispute between Rashi and the Rambam in explaining the words of Toras Kohanim is [part of] a general dispute regarding the definition of the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem.
2. The explanation of this, it can be said, is as follows:
The mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem is — in the words of Toras Kohanim — "Give yourself over and sanctify My Name": that a Jew should sacrifice himself without any calculations; he is prepared to perish, G‑d forbid, as long as he does not transgress the (severe) sin — and thereby he sanctifies His Name, may He be blessed.
When a Jew gives his life for the sanctification of His Name, and G‑d brings about circumstances so that the Jew is saved — and all the more so when the rescue comes through a miracle — His great Name is thereby sanctified even more.7 The question, however, is whether this form of Kiddush Hashem (through a miracle and rescue) is part of the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem ("Give yourself over and sanctify My Name") which the person fulfills, or whether it is a separate matter — something that G‑d does, performing a miracle in order to sanctify His Name in the world.
And this is the difference between Rashi and the Rambam:
Rashi learns that what Toras Kohanim says, "From here they said," is a continuation in explaining the manner of fulfilling the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem — and when a Jew is saved through a miracle, the one fulfilling the mitzvah has a connection (to the miracle, and consequently) to the addition in Kiddush Hashem, and he is obligated in this as well. This is learned from the fact that the verse says "V'nikdashti," in the passive form and in the form of a command,8 [teaching] that the entire Kiddush Hashem that comes about in a "passive" manner by G‑d — including the miracle of rescuing the Jew, which is brought about by G‑d — the Kiddush Hashem that results from it is part of the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem which the person fulfills.
And this makes clear why Toras Kohanim says "From here they said: Whoever gives himself over on condition that a miracle be done for him, no miracle is done for him; and not [on condition] that a miracle be done for him, a miracle is done for him" — for seemingly: when a Jew fulfills "Give yourself over and sanctify My Name," he does not intend to do so on condition that G‑d rescue him through a miracle; [if he did,] then it would not be a matter of "give yourself over" at all — on the contrary, he would be making a condition, "on condition"9 of his own survival!
Rather, the explanation is: Toras Kohanim adds here, as above, that in this way the "V'nikdashti" is accomplished in full: when a Jew gives himself over — in a manner of "not [on condition] that a miracle be done for him" — then "a miracle is done for him," and the complete "V'nikdashti" is accomplished, with G‑d performing a miracle and rescuing the one who gave himself over.
3. Based on this, we will also understand why Toras Kohanim elaborates on the two proofs (from Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah, and "when Marinus seized, etc."). These are its words (in the first proof):
"For so we find with Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah, who said to Nebuchadnezzar:10 "לא חשחין אנחנא על דנא פתגם להתבותך" ("We have no need to answer you on this matter") (we are not concerned about taking counsel on what to answer you, for the answer is ready and fluent in our mouths — Rashi on the verse). "הן איתי אלקנא די אנחנא פלחין יכיל לשיזבותנא מן אתון נורא יקידתא ומן ידך מלכא ישיזיב. והן לא ידיע ליהוי לך מלכא דלאלקיך לית אנן פלחין ולצלם דהב דהקמת לא סגדין" ("Behold, our G‑d Whom we serve is able to save us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will save us from your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods, nor bow down to the golden image that you have set up")."
Toras Kohanim brings the full length of what Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah said to Nebuchadnezzar — not only the end of their words, "But if not (He will save), be it known to you, O king, etc."11 (that in any case they will not bow to his "image," without considering whether they will be saved or not —), but also what they said, that G‑d is able to rescue them from the fiery furnace — because this pertains to the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem: when a Jew gives his life for Kiddush Hashem (to sanctify His Name), he must know that G‑d is able to rescue him — and the rescue is (an additional) matter in the sanctification of the Name of Heaven.12
And this is what Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah told Nebuchadnezzar: they know that G‑d "is able to save us," but even "if not," they will under no circumstances bow to the "image," and they are prepared to give their lives for Kiddush Hashem.
4. Afterwards, Toras Kohanim brings a second proof: "וכשתפס מרינוס את פפוס ואת לולינוס אחיו בלודקיא א"ל אם אתם מעמו של חנני' מישאל ועזרי' יבוא אלקיכם ויציל אתכם מידי וא"ל חנני' מישאל ועזרי' כשרים היו ונבוכדנצר הי' הגון שיעשה נס על ידו, אבל אתה מלך רשע אתה ואין אתה הגון שיעשה נס על ידך, ואנו מחוייבי מיתה לשמים ואם אין אתה הורגינו הרבה מזיקים לפני המקום הרבה דובים כו' אלא סוף שהמקום עתיד לתבוע דמינו מידך. אמרו לא נסע משם עד שבאו עליו דיופלי מרומי והוציאו את מוחו בבקעיות" ("When Marinus seized Pappos and his brother Lulianus in Laodicea, he said to them: 'If you are of the people of Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah, let your G‑d come and save you from my hand.' They said to him: 'Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah were worthy, and Nebuchadnezzar was fit that a miracle be done through him; but you are a wicked king, and you are not fit that a miracle be done through you. We are liable to death before Heaven, and if you do not kill us, the Omnipresent has many destroyers, many bears, etc.; but in the end the Omnipresent will demand our blood from your hand.' They said: He did not travel from there until diyufli [officials] from Rome came upon him and split his skull with clubs").
That is: in continuation of and in addition to the first proof — that the completeness of "V'nikdashti" is when G‑d performs a miracle and rescues the one who gives himself over — Toras Kohanim emphasizes, on the other hand, that when G‑d does not save the one who gives himself over, it is because he [the king] does not merit that His Name be sanctified to such an extent through him.13
Based on this, the continuation in Toras Kohanim is also better understood (or, more than that — it is compelled): that in practice they — Pappos and Lulianus — merited that the "V'nikdashti" be accomplished "in its completeness," because there was a miracle — "He did not travel from there until . . and split his skull."14
5. The Rambam, however, holds that the form of Kiddush Hashem explained in Toras Kohanim (that His Name is sanctified through the miracle) is not a halachah, but rather an additional detail in the Midrashic expositions of the Torah concerning the virtue of the mitzvah and its reward.
The definition of a mitzvah according to halachah is the action of a person, and not something that G‑d does (even when the cause of it is the person's action); and certainly not something that is accomplished through a miracle, for the Torah and its mitzvos are not structured such that they should be fulfilled through a miracle.15
Similarly in our case: the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem in halachah is the deed and action of the person — that the Jew gives himself over to be killed for Kiddush Hashem. As the Rambam expresses it in Sefer HaMitzvos:16 "וענין זאת המצוה אשר אנחנו מצווים לפרסם האמונה הזאת האמיתית בעולם ושלא נפחד בהיקש שום מזיק ואע"פ שבא עלינו מכריח לבקש ממנו לכפותינו שלא נשמע אליו אבל נמסור עצמינו למיתה ולא נתעהו לחשוב שכפרנו אע"פ שלבותינו מאמינים בו יתעלה" ("The content of this mitzvah is that we are commanded to publicize this true faith in the world, and that we not fear the harm17 of any harmer; and even if a coercer comes upon us, seeking to make us deny [Him], we should not listen to him, but rather give ourselves over to death, and not mislead him into thinking that we have denied [Him], even though our hearts believe in Him, may He be exalted").18 "וזאת היא מצות קדוש השם המצווים בה בני ישראל בכללם רוצה לומר התרת עצמנו למות ביד האנס בעבור אהבתו יתעלה והאמונה באחדותו כמו שעשו חנני' מישאל ועזרי' כו'" ("And this is the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem with which the Children of Israel as a whole are commanded,19 that is to say, our yielding ourselves to die at the hand of the coercer for the sake of our love of Him, may He be exalted, and our faith in His Unity, as Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah did, etc.") (as he elaborates there).
From this it is understood that the detail and part of Kiddush Hashem that comes as a result of G‑d rescuing the Jew through a miracle is a separate matter, and not part of the person's fulfillment of the mitzvah of "V'nikdashti."
And perhaps20 it can be said that the complete fulfillment of the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem consists specifically in the one who gives himself over being killed21 for the sanctification of His Name22 (whereas when he is saved through a miracle, the fulfillment of the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem is not as (tangibly, and consequently —) complete23). This is precise in the wording of the Rambam:24 "כל מי שנאמר בו יהרג ואל יעבור ונהרג ולא עבר הרי זה קידש את השם" ("Whoever was told 'be killed rather than transgress,' and was killed and did not transgress, has sanctified the Name"): the Rambam places "was killed" first, (and afterwards) "and did not transgress" (not "did not transgress and was killed") — because the chief completeness of the sanctification is not (so much) in the fact that "he did not transgress" (and was saved miraculously), but in the fact that he was killed for Kiddush Hashem, since thereby the strength of the faith of the one sanctifying [the Name], and his love for G‑d, are brought out openly and tangibly.25
This also explains why the Rambam continues:26 "ואלו הן הרוגי מלכות שאין מעלה על מעלתן ועליהן נאמר כי עליך הורגנו כל היום נחשבנו כצאן טבחה ועליהם נאמר אספו לי חסידי כורתי בריתי עלי זבח" ("And these are the martyrs of the kingdom, above whose level there is none, and concerning them it is said,27 'For Your sake we are killed all the day; we are regarded as sheep for the slaughter,' and concerning them it is said,28 'Gather to Me My pious ones, who made My covenant over sacrifice'").29 For seemingly, the Rambam's Sefer HaYad is a book of laws, and not (so much) of expositions of verses concerning the reward of mitzvos —
What bearing does the virtue of the "martyrs of the kingdom, above whose level there is none, and concerning them it is said, etc." have on halachah?
Rather, the Rambam brings this because it is part of the definition of the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem: this is not (merely) a matter of "virtue," but an elevation30 in the fulfillment of the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem itself; they fulfilled the mitzvah in its ultimate completeness.*
It follows that according to the Rambam's view, the complete intent of "V'nikdashti" in the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem is the sanctification of His Name brought about through "our yielding ourselves to die"31 (which demonstrates, amidst the Children of Israel, the strength of the Jew's faith) — consequently, there is no room to say that "a miracle is done for him" is part of the mitzvah of "V'nikdashti."
6. Based on all the above, we can explain several changes in Rashi's commentary as compared with the explanation of Toras Kohanim (as below) — because according to Rashi's commentary on the plain meaning of Scripture, there emerges a third approach (an intermediate approach between Toras Kohanim and the Rambam) in defining the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem.
Among the changes in Rashi's commentary:
a) Rashi brings only the first case of Toras Kohanim ("with the expectation of a miracle, no miracle is done for him"), and omits the case "not [on condition] that a miracle be done for him, a miracle is done for him."
[Correspondingly, Rashi also makes changes in citing the proofs: (a) He brings only the proof of Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah32 — not the second proof of "when Marinus seized, etc." (as in Toras Kohanim). (b) In the proof of Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah itself, Rashi does not copy the full length of the statement (as in Toras Kohanim), but only the part whose content is that "they did not give themselves over with the expectation of a miracle" ("'But if not, be it known to you, O king,' etc. — whether He saves or does not save, 'be it known to you'33 etc."34) —
This is because the second proof and the first part of the statement of Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah pertain to the matter of "not [on condition] that a miracle be done for him, a miracle is done for him" (as above, sections 3–4), which Rashi does not bring.]
b) Also the matter "whoever gives himself over with the expectation of a miracle, no miracle is done for him" Rashi does not state as a matter in its own right (as in Toras Kohanim), but as a reason for what he says before it: "And when he gives himself over, he should give himself over with the intention to die — for (not 'and') whoever gives himself over, etc."35
Which — in addition to this being a change relative to Toras Kohanim — is also not understood in the matter itself: how is it fitting to say that the reason for "he should give himself over with the intention to die" is (the negative aspect) "for whoever gives himself over with the expectation of a miracle, no miracle is done for him"? Not only does this matter ("no miracle is done for him") not give a reason why he should give himself over "with the intention to die," but on the contrary, it brings out the opposite — that, in a hidden way, there is a thought of "having a miracle done for him"!
7. The explanation of this, it can be said, is as follows:
It was said earlier that according to Toras Kohanim, the passive ("V'nikdashti") is part of the very mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem, such that "(not [on condition] that a miracle be done for him,) a miracle is done for him" pertains also to the person's knowledge and intention at the time of fulfilling the mitzvah — he must know that G‑d is able to save him, and that thereby the completeness of Kiddush Hashem will be accomplished (as is emphasized in the proofs of Toras Kohanim, as above).
But according to the plain meaning of Scripture, it is not plausible to say that the Kiddush Hashem that comes through the miracle of rescue by G‑d should be part of the person's mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem; rather, the mitzvah is (similar to the above, section 5, in the Rambam's view) the action of the person — "Give yourself over and sanctify My Name." The mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem is the "sanctify My Name" that is accomplished through the person's "give yourself over"36 (that when one sees how a Jew is ready for self-sacrifice, His Name is sanctified in the world*36).
[For this reason Rashi does not bring the matter of "not [on condition] that a miracle be done for him, a miracle is done for him" (with the proofs, etc., as in Toras Kohanim) — because according to Rashi's commentary, the person's fulfillment of the mitzvah does not consist in G‑d sanctifying His Name further through performing the miracle.]
However, since the Torah says "V'nikdashti," in the passive form — from which it is implied that the sanctification of the Name of Heaven that G‑d brings about (through performing the miracle) does pertain to the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem — Rashi explains that this comes to teach a further "addition" in the person's "give yourself over": that it must be in the manner of "giving himself over with the intention to die":37
Were it not for this teaching, one could think that when someone sacrifices himself "with the expectation of a miracle" (he hopes and relies on G‑d performing a miracle and rescuing him), nothing at all is lacking in the sanctification of the Name of Heaven ("sanctify My Name"), for outwardly his intention is not discernible; those standing by see only his deed — that he gives himself over to be killed. The deficiency here is only that he does not perform the mitzvah purely for its own sake.
On this the verse says "V'nikdashti" — that also the sanctification of the Name of Heaven brought about by G‑d's action pertains to the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem; and therefore — "when he gives himself over, he should give himself over with the intention to die" (for if not, he hinders, as it were, G‑d from sanctifying His Name through a miracle), (because) "whoever gives himself over with the expectation of a miracle, no miracle is done for him."
It follows that the emphasis in Rashi's commentary is the opposite of the emphasis of Toras Kohanim: according to Toras Kohanim, we learn from "V'nikdashti" that the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem includes the knowledge that "a miracle is done for him" — that G‑d is able to save him, and thereby there will be a complete "V'nikdashti"; according to Rashi, we learn from "V'nikdashti" the opposite — that the person's intention must be "with the intention to die" (so as not to "hinder," as it were, the possibility of "V'nikdashti" openly and tangibly).
8. Based on the above, yet another difference between Toras Kohanim and Rashi's commentary is better understood: in Toras Kohanim the wording is "(whoever gives himself over, etc.) and not [on condition] that a miracle be done for him," whereas in Rashi it says "(he should give himself over) with the intention to die":
According to Toras Kohanim — that he must (also) have the knowledge that G‑d is able to perform a miracle and save him (so that a more complete Kiddush Hashem will result) — it follows that his self-sacrifice is not with the full aim and intention "to die";38 it is only that he, for his part, is ready and gives himself over even if G‑d will not perform a miracle (to bring about the completeness of Kiddush Hashem) — "and not [on condition] that a miracle be done for him";
whereas according to Rashi, we learn from "V'nikdashti" that "when he gives himself over, he should give himself over with the intention to die" — without thinking at all about the rescue that G‑d is able to bring about.
9. May it be G‑d's will that through the study of the laws of Kiddush Hashem, we merit very soon, mamash, the nullification of the exile — the very essence of exile being, as the verse states explicitly, "שמי מחולל בגוים" ("My Name is desecrated among the nations"), the opposite of Kiddush Hashem;
and there will be the complete "ונקדשתי לעיני כל העמים, וקדשתי את שמי הגדול . . וידעו הגוים כי אני ה'" ("and I shall be sanctified before the eyes of all the nations, and I will sanctify My great Name . . and the nations shall know that I am G‑d")39 —
with the true and complete Redemption through our righteous Moshiach, speedily in our days, mamash.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Emor, 5742)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 22:32.
2) Ch. 5.
3) See Tzeidah LaDerech on Rashi here: "It is surprising to me why the Rambam and the Tur (Yoreh De'ah) did not mention this 'and when he gives himself over, etc.' in the laws of Kiddush Hashem." Note that in the Smag, in the positive commandment of Kiddush Hashem (positive commandment 5), it is cited: "And when he gives himself over, his intention should not be to rely on a miracle, for whoever gives himself over, etc." Similarly in the Smak (§44): "A person should not give himself over on condition that a miracle be done for him, for whoever gives himself over, etc." See Darkei Teshuvah (Yoreh De'ah §157, subsection 27), who cites from several works in the name of the Behag that when a person gives himself over to death for Kiddush Hashem, he must intend [to do so] even if no miracle will be done for him.
4) See the commentary Korban Aharon on Toras Kohanim there. See also Pesikta Zutrasa — cited below, end of note 37.
5) Similar to the above in the Smag and Smak.
6) Bereishis 3:8, and in many places.
7) See Biurei Mahari (by the author of Terumas HaDeshen) on Rashi (copied in Tzeidah LaDerech). [However, from what he writes, "V'nikdashti . . implies that the Name of Heaven will be sanctified not on account of his having given himself over, but rather that He will perform a miracle for those who sanctify G‑d" — see below in the text (section 6) that it is seemingly forced to say that this is Rashi's intent.] But see note *36.
8) See Biurei Mahari there.
9) As [OCR unclear] with "al menas" ("on condition") — Eruvin 15b, and the sources cited there; and in many places [OCR unclear]. Rambam, Laws of Ishus, ch. 7 (from the [daily Rambam] study portions of this Shabbos (5746)); Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer §38; §143; and elsewhere.
10) Daniel 3:16ff. There with slightly different wording.
11) So it is in the Zohar — cited below, note 25.
12) Based on this, it can be said that this is also the intent in Midrash Tehillim, Psalm 28: "And how did He repay them? All the frogs died, and those that went down into the oven did not die, because they gave themselves over to burning in order to fulfill the decree of the Holy One, blessed be He. Todos of Rome said: From here they said, if the frogs, etc., by giving themselves and sacrificing their lives for the sanctification of the Name, did not die — we, all the more so, who are the children of, etc., and have been commanded concerning the sanctification of the Name, all the more so." The intent is not, as the plain wording implies, that they gave themselves over with the expectation of a miracle [as is the plain wording in the explanation cited in Sefer HaYashar of Rabbeinu Tam (Novellae section, [OCR unclear] 354), and in the Rishonim on Pesachim 53b (Tosfos HaRitva; Chiddushei Rabbeinu Dovid [OCR unclear]; see also the Rif on Ein Yaakov there; Pesach Einayim by the Chida there — the discussion of this)], but rather to the fact that they specified and said that the Holy One, blessed be He, is able to save them (see the above Rishonim, who cite in the words of [OCR unclear] what Chananyah, etc., said: "our G‑d . . is able to save us"), and thereby His Name will be sanctified all the more. And so it actually was, that specifically through this there was a greater Kiddush Hashem, as related in Daniel there, 24ff. See Bereishis Rabbah, end of ch. 56, and the commentaries there; Shemos Rabbah (9:1, at its end) and the commentaries; and the sources cited there.
*) Note that in Midrash Tehillim ([OCR unclear]): "And we have been commanded concerning the sanctification of the Name, and He will in the future pay us full reward; all the more so, as we are obligated to give our lives for the sanctification of the Name."
13) Or because "you are a wicked king, and you are not fit that a miracle be done through you" (Toras Kohanim there).
14) That is, also according to what is explained in Taanis (18b), that [though] they killed them, His Name was sanctified through the fact that they did not move from there until Turyanus (Trajan) was killed, as in the text. And certainly according to the explanation of Korban Aharon on Toras Kohanim there, that in this story too the intent of Toras Kohanim is "that G‑d, may He be blessed, fulfilled the word of His servants, saving them through a miracle" — for in Toras Kohanim it is not brought that Turyanus was killed (as in tractate Taanis); but it is very forced to say that they disagree about the facts (and a well-known event).
15) It can be said that this is one of the reasons why, in the Laws of the Chosen House (1:14), the Rambam did not bring the matter of the shamir in the building of the Beis HaMikdash (see Kesef Mishneh there). Similarly regarding his ruling in the Laws of Kings (beginning of ch. 11, and at its end) that Moshiach will build the Beis HaMikdash — and not that it will be revealed and come from Heaven (even though this is so in many Midrashim, and as in Rashi and Tosafos, Sukkah 41a, end of the page (see Likkutei Sichos vol. 8, p. 418ff.; below, p. 204; and the sources cited there)).
16) Positive commandment 9.
17) So it is in our printed Sefer HaMitzvos. In the Kafih edition: "mehezek" ("from the harm").
18) See also Tanya, end of ch. 9.
19) Note also the wording of the Rambam in the Laws of Yesodei HaTorah, beginning of ch. 5: "All the house of Israel are commanded concerning the sanctification of the Name."
20) The matter of the Akeidah requires further study. — Note [OCR unclear], ch. 31 (near its end; and elsewhere): "his soul flew and departed." See Shaarei Teshuvah of the Mitteler Rebbe, part 1, the discourse beginning "Acharei . ." [OCR unclear] (46b ff.); Likkutei Sichos vol. 25, p. 135ff., and the sources cited there. This is not the place to elaborate.
21) As the Maggid assured the Beis Yosef: "You will be burned for the sanctification of My Name" (Maggid Meisharim, beginning of Parshas Tetzaveh); [OCR unclear] (our parsha, section beginning "Achar Kach," §36), and in many places (cited and referenced in Likkutei Sichos vol. 21, p. 176).
22) See Responsa Dvar Shmuel §63 (and similarly in Minchas Chinuch, mitzvah 296 — 108d) that the one who is coerced does not join to complete the ten [required] for the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem, "for since the essence of Kiddush Hashem is in the death of the coerced person, at that moment ten are required [besides him]." Although regarding the actual law this seemingly requires examination — since the act of Kiddush Hashem and his being killed is (also) from the time he gave himself over until the time he dies, [OCR unclear]. See Darkei Teshuvah there, subsection 24. And the Minchas Chinuch there continues: "Or perhaps, since if he were to transgress there would be a desecration of the Name of Heaven, for he is alive, he does join; this requires further study."
*) See the Shelah cited in the next note.
23) Note Sefer Chassidim §222. And the Shelah (Shaar HaOsiyos, end of the letter Alef — 61a, top) writes regarding a blessing on the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem: "One cannot say that one should not recite the blessing of Kiddush Hashem because perhaps the accuser will retract and release him, etc. — for is it so that if the Holy One, blessed be He, performs a miracle for him and he is saved, etc., he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of 'V'nikdashti'? [OCR unclear] when he gave his body over to be killed, he sanctified the Name amidst the Children of Israel."
24) Laws of Yesodei HaTorah 5:4.
25) Note the Zohar I (142a; see also Shir HaShirim Rabbah cited in note 33), that their saying before him "Behold, our G‑d, etc., is able to save us" contained a sin, and "since they knew that they had not spoken properly, they went back and said, 'But if not, be it known to you, O king, etc.' — whether He saves or does not save." And in Or HaChamah there, from Rabbi Chaim Vital: "And through this, on the contrary, the Name of Heaven will be sanctified, when all the nations see the people of Israel holding fast to their G‑d and [OCR unclear]* and being burned for the sanctification of His Name." See there. See also below, note 31.
*) The intent requires further study.
26) In the Yad there.
27) Tehillim 44:23.
28) Ibid. 50:5.
29) The Pri Chadash (in his work Mayim Chaim) on the Rambam here writes that what the Rambam writes, "And these are the martyrs of the kingdom," does not refer to those mentioned immediately before, "Daniel, Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah, and Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues," but rather to "martyrs of the kingdom similar to Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues," in keeping with the Gemara's exposition (Pesachim 50a; Bava Basra 10b, and Rashi there; see also Toras Kohanim on our parsha here) that it refers to "the martyrs of Lod." Other commentators write similarly. But note that the Rambam continues, "and concerning them it is said, 'Gather to Me My pious ones, etc.'," and it is explicit in Sanhedrin (110b): "'Who made My covenant' — this refers to Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah, who gave themselves over into the fiery furnace; 'over sacrifice' — [this refers to] Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues, who gave themselves over to slaughter for the words of Torah." Therefore, the Rambam's intent in "And these are the martyrs, etc." is seemingly as the plain meaning of his words — that it refers to (what he writes immediately before it) anyone who "sanctified the Name publicly, like Daniel, Chananyah . . and Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues," all of whom (and certainly "Daniel . . and his colleagues" themselves) are in the category of "martyrs of the kingdom, above whose level there is none, and concerning them it is said, 'For Your sake we are killed . . Gather to Me My pious ones . . over sacrifice.'" This is also clearly evident in the Rambam's Iggeres HaShmad. [And the fact that in the Gemara (Pesachim and Bava Basra there) it states that the "martyrs of the kingdom" are the "martyrs of Lod" and not Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues — that is because, regarding Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues, [are they] merely martyrs of the kingdom and nothing more? (as a question); that is, with them "there is (also) Torah and deeds" (see Mesores HaShas, Bava Basra there; Dikdukei Sofrim, Pesachim and Bava Basra there), which is not so with "the martyrs of Lod" (see also Iggeres HaShmad there).]
30) Based on this, it is better understood why the Rambam changed from the wording of the Gemara (Pesachim there), "the martyrs of the kingdom — no person can stand in their compartment" (in Bava Basra: "no creature can") — for that wording emphasizes the level of their reward, whereas the Rambam's wording emphasizes their virtue in the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem itself.
*) Although Daniel, Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah were not actually killed — see below, note 31.
31) It can be said that this also applies to Daniel and to Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah, for from Nebuchadnezzar's side it was as though they were killed (and from their side as well — not only was "our yielding ourselves to die" not lacking, but it was as though they were killed), for they were inside the fiery furnace, and Daniel in the lions' den. This is unlike a rescue in which the person did not come into a state of actual danger of being killed, but only the threat of the coercer. See the sources referenced in note 20.
32) The reason Rashi did not bring a proof from Avraham and Haran, which he cites in his commentary (Noach 11:28) — that Haran gave himself over with the expectation of a miracle and was not saved (see Mattenos Kehunah and Yefeh To'ar (the complete edition) on Bereishis Rabbah 38:13) — is because [in addition to this being before the Giving of the Torah,] Haran was in doubt about G‑d and His ability; rather, after Avram was saved, he said that he was of Avram's [side]. Furthermore: this matter is brought in Rashi from a "Midrash Aggadah" (and in this itself — a "proof"), unlike the story of Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah, which is explicit in Scripture. This is not the place to elaborate.
33) The wording "whether He saves or does not save, be it known, etc." is in Tanchuma, Behaalosecha 9; Bamidbar Rabbah 15:14; Shir HaShirim Rabbah 7:8; Yalkut, Daniel, remez 1061. See also similarly in Tanchuma, Noach 10; Aggadas Bereishis, ch. 7; and elsewhere.
34) So it is in several printings, including the first printing of Rashi, which ends "etc." Seemingly, the intent is to the continuation of the verse in Daniel (as also cited in the above Midrashim). In the second printing and in manuscripts of Rashi (in my possession), "etc." does not appear. And one of the manuscripts of Rashi (in my possession) ends "we do not serve your gods."
35) So too in the Smag and Smak there (as above, note 3).
36) Based on this, it is better understood why Rashi writes his commentary on "V'nikdashti" within the heading "V'lo sechalelu" — to emphasize that the content of the mitzvah of "V'nikdashti" (although stated in the passive form) is similar to the command "V'lo sechalelu," where the desecration comes about through the person's action — (in Rashi's words) "to transgress My words intentionally."
*) The reason Rashi needed to explain "V'lo sechalelu" (even though in Chumash he did not explain it) — it can be said that according to the plain meaning of Scripture there was room to explain "V'lo sechalelu, etc." as referring to a specific transgression (as in other places in the Torah where "V'lo sechalelu" is stated and a specific transgression is being discussed — see our parsha 21:6; 22:2 and Rashi there; 22:15; and elsewhere), referring to the warnings in this section (22, [OCR unclear], and as in Rashi) concerning the prohibition of pigul, etc. Ibn Ezra explains here similarly. (Or we might explain it as a prohibition like one who reviles and blasphemes the Name (see Moreh Nevuchim III:41, which includes one who desecrates the Name in the category of a blasphemer).) — Rashi rejects this explanation and writes "to transgress My words intentionally," meaning that it is a warning pertaining to all the mitzvos (similarly in Rambam, Laws of Yesodei HaTorah 5:1). Rashi's compelling reason is from the preceding verse (22:31; see Rashi there), "You shall keep My commandments and do them," which speaks of all the mitzvos.
*36) But it is obvious that according to the plain meaning of Scripture there is no room at all to say (as above, section 5, in the Rambam's view) that the killing of a Jew because of his faith in G‑d, etc., is a matter of Kiddush Hashem — for on the contrary: such a thing brings about the opposite of the sanctification of His Name in the world, and in the words of the verse (Tehillim 79:10), "Why should the nations say, 'Where is their G‑d?'"
It can further be said (somewhat differently from what is explained in the text) that the essence of Kiddush Hashem according to its plain meaning is (only) that the Holy One, blessed be He, performs a miracle for him and saves him (like the miracle of Avraham's rescue in Ur Kasdim — Rashi, Noach 11:28); but this does not pertain to the mitzvah incumbent upon the person, for according to the plain meaning they are two different matters: a) the mitzvah, which is only self-sacrifice ("give yourself over"*); b) the Kiddush Hashem that comes afterwards through the action of the Holy One, blessed be He (in performing the miracle).
[However, from the fact that the mitzvah of self-sacrifice was stated with "V'nikdashti," we learn that the person must give himself over in a manner that allows "V'nikdashti" to take place (that the Holy One, blessed be He, perform a miracle for him) — which is by giving himself over to die, "for whoever gives himself over with the expectation of a miracle, no miracle is done for him," as below in the text.]
*) As for Rashi's wording "and sanctify My Name" (which implies that the person sanctifies His Name through his action) — it can be said that this is because he must give himself over in a manner that allows "V'nikdashti" to take place, as in the body of this note.
37) Based on what is explained in the text, another difference between Toras Kohanim and Rashi's commentary is better understood: Toras Kohanim begins (after the matter of "Give yourself over and sanctify My Name") "From here they said: Whoever gives himself over, etc.," whereas in Rashi's commentary — "(Give yourself over, etc.) and when he gives himself over, he should give himself over, etc." For according to Toras Kohanim, the matter of "a miracle is done for him" pertains to the very mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem (as explained above at length); whereas according to Rashi's commentary, the essence of the mitzvah is only "Give yourself over and sanctify My Name" (the Kiddush Hashem brought about by the self-sacrifice itself), except that from the wording "V'nikdashti" (the passive form) we learn a further matter in the mitzvah of Kiddush Hashem (which, simply, is not indispensable) — "and when he gives himself over, he should give himself over with the intention to die." Note the wording in Pesikta Zutrasa here: "V'nikdashti, etc. — Give yourself over to death to sanctify My Name, etc. From here they said: Whoever gives himself over on condition that a miracle be done for him, etc.; and not [on condition] that a miracle be done for him, etc. For so we find with Chananyah, etc."
38) See note 25.
39) Yechezkel 36:23.
Key Lesson
A Jew who stands ready to give up his life for G‑d's Name must do so with the intention to die, without inner reliance on being rescued by a miracle. Specifically such complete self-sacrifice leaves room for G‑d to sanctify His Name openly in the world.