Daf Ditty Taanis 18: Trajan’s Day

1
What is the origin of Trajan’s Day? They said in explanation: When Trajan sought to kill the
important leaders Luleyanus and his brother Pappas in Laodicea, he said to them: If you are
from the nation of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your God come and save you from
my hand, just as He saved Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the hand of
Nebuchadnezzar. Luleyanus and Pappas said to him: Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were
full-fledged righteous people, and they were worthy that a miracle should be performed for
them, and Nebuchadnezzar was a legitimate king who rose to power through his merit, and it
is fitting that a miracle be performed through him.

But this wicked man, Trajan, is a commoner, not a real king, and it is not fitting that a miracle
be performed through him. Luleyanus and Pappas continued: And we are not wholly righteous,
and have been condemned to destruction by the Omnipresent for our sins. And if you do not
kill us, the Omnipresent has many other executioners. And if men do not kill us, the
Omnipresent has many bears and lions in His world that can hurt us and kill us. Instead, the
Holy One, Blessed be He, placed us into your hands only so that He will avenge our blood in
the future.

2
Even so, Trajan remained unmoved by their response and killed them immediately. It is said that
they had not moved from the place of execution when two officials [diyoflei] arrived from
Rome with permission to remove Trajan from power, and they split his skull with clubs. This
was viewed as an act of divine retribution and was established as a commemorative day.

JASTROW

MISHNA: The order of these fasts of increasing severity, as explained in Chapter One, is stated
only in a case when the first rainfall has not materialized. However, if there is vegetation that
grew and its appearance changed due to disease, the court does not wait at all; they cry out about
it immediately. And likewise, if rain ceased for a period of forty days between one rainfall and
another, they cry out about it because it is a plague of drought.

3
If sufficient rain fell for the vegetation but not enough fell for the trees; or if it was enough for
the trees but not for the vegetation; or if sufficient rain fell for both this and that, i.e.,
vegetation and trees, but not enough to fill the cisterns, ditches, and caves with water to last the
summer, they cry out about it immediately. And likewise, if there is a particular city upon which
it did not rain, while the surrounding area did receive rain, this is considered a divine curse, as it
is written:

‫ ז‬,‫הַ גֶּשֶּ ם‬-‫וְ גַם אָ נֹכִ י מָ נַעְ ִתי ִמכֶּם אֶּ ת‬
‫ וְ ִה ְמטַ ְר ִתי‬,‫ְבעֹוד ְשֹלשָ ה חֳדָ ִשים לַקָ צִ יר‬
‫עִ יר אַ חַ ת ל ֹא‬-‫ וְ עַ ל‬,‫עִ יר אֶּ חָ ת‬-‫עַ ל‬
‫ וְ חֶּ לְ קָ ה‬,‫אַ ְמ ִטיר; חֶּ לְ קָ ה אַ חַ ת ִתמָ טֵ ר‬
‫תַ ְמ ִטיר עָ לֶּיהָ ִתיבָ ש‬-‫ל ֹא‬-‫אֲ שֶּ ר‬.
7 And I also have withholden the rain from you, when
there were yet three months to the harvest; and I caused
it to rain upon one city, and caused it not to rain upon
another city; one piece was rained upon, and the piece
whereupon it rained not withered.
Amos 4:7

“And I caused it to rain upon one city, but caused it not to rain upon another city; one piece
was rained upon, and the portion upon which it did not rain withered”

Summary

Introduction1

This mishnah teaches that sometimes we skip the order of fasts that was taught in the previous two
chapters and we proceed straight to the last set of fasts, when we blow the shofar and fast for the
entire day.

The order of public fasts mentioned above is enacted because of [lack of] the first rain, but
if the crops have undergone [an unusual] change they sound a blast immediately.

If it doesn’t rain during the first season in which rain should come, then we begin the series of fasts
that was described in the previous two chapters. However, if the crops start to look as if they are
going bad, then the situation is obviously more serious. In such a case we skip the first two sets of

1https://www.sefaria.org/Taanit.18b.14?lang=bi&p2=Mishnah_Taanit.3.1&lang2=bi&w2=English%20Explanation%20of%20Mi
shnah&lang3=en

4
fasts and go right to the third set, the set where we blast the shofar. The change of the crops
appearance is far more serious and therefore it calls for an immediate sounding of the alarm.

Similarly, if the rain has stopped for forty days between one rainfall and the next, they sound
a blast immediately, because it is a plague of drought.

Another case in which we skip immediately to blowing the shofar and fasting for the entire day is
a situation in which it began to rain but then stopped raining for forty days. Such a situation
foreshadows drought and therefore it is especially dangerous.

Prohibiting Fasting on Celebratory Days2

There are two fast days - Adar 13 and Adar 12 - that the rabbis argue we should not fast and we
should not eulogize on. They tell stories about these two days. My understanding is that these
two days in Adar are to be celebrated, and thus we are prohibited from afflicting ourselves at the
same time.

13 Adar was known as Yom Nicanor. Nicanor was a Greek general who would wave his arm at
Jerusalem and claim that one day that land would be his. Nicanor wills killed by invading Romans.

12 Adar is known as Yom Trayanus. Trayanus was a Roman officer who had two Jews killed. The
following day, he was removed from his post and killed by his own superiors.

The Gemara discusses Ta'anit Esther, which is considered to be different from other fasts. We
celebrate the Jewish victory over Haman on that day. Ta'anit Esther is used to explain a couple of
different concepts - both of which are still fuzzy for me. The concepts consider what should or
should not be done the on the day before a fast day. There seems to be some tension between
observance the day before a special day and observance on that special day itself.

One of the more confusing - and interesting - factors at play is that our halacha changed over
time. The observance of Yom Nicanor changed; the observance of Purim changed in
response. Our traditions might seem static, but they are in fact alive and pliable. It is the
community that determines how rigid we want our halachot to be. With learning, thoughtful
consideration and consultation, our halacha must reflect the needs of our changing

2 http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/06/taanit-18.html

5
communities. Today's daf reminds us that this has been done numerous times over the course of
the past 2000 years.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:3

MEGILLAS TAANIS

It is written in Megillas Taanis that these are the days that one is not allowed to fast on them and
on some of them; it is not even permitted to eulogize.

From Rosh Chodesh Nissan until the eighth day of Nissan, the Chachamim were victorious over
the Sadducees in a debate regarding the korban tamid (The Sadducees maintained that the tamid
should be donated by individuals and the Chachamim convinced them that communal funds are
required.). These days were declared as minor festivals and it is prohibited from fasting or even
eulogizing on these days. From the eighth day of Nissan until after Pesach, the debate regarding
the Yom Tov of Shavuos was settled (The Baitusim held that Shavuos must be on a Sunday) and
therefore it was decreed that one cannot fast or eulogize on these days. The Gemora asked on the
necessity regarding the decree that it is prohibited from eulogizing on the first day of Nissan; it
should be prohibited regardless since it is Rosh Chodesh.

The Gemora answers that the decree is needed in order to prohibit the day before the festival as
well. The Gemora explains that since Rosh Chodesh is Biblical, it would not require strengthening
(by prohibiting the day before also), however the festivals mentioned in Megillas Taanis are only
a Rabbinical ordinance and hence they require strengthening.

The Gemora asks a similar question on the second section cited in Megillas Taanis. What was the
purpose of including the days of Pesach in the decree? Rav Pappa answers that due to the decree,
the day following Pesach is also prohibited. This Gemora is obviously in accordance with the
opinion of Rabbi Yosi who maintains that the day following a day on which Megillas Taanis
prohibits eulogizing is also prohibited (According to the Tanna Kamma, only the day preceding
such a day would be prohibited). If so, why does Megillas Taanis find it necessary to rule that the
twenty ninth day in Adar is subject to the prohibition of eulogizing because it is the day preceding
the first of Nissan, let it be prohibited because it is the day following the twenty eighth of Adar,
which is also a festival.

The Gemora cites the braisa in Megillas Taanis which records the incident. The Romans had
decreed that the Jews could not study Torah, perform circumcisions or keep Shabbos. Yehudah
ben Shamua took advice from a Roman noblewoman and the Jews went out into the streets at night
to protest. They cried out that we are brothers (the Jews and the Romans), and we are children
from the same father and mother. Why are you (the Romans) issuing such harsh decrees on us?
The Romans listened and revoked the decree.

3 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Taanis_18.pdf

6
This day was pronounced as a festival. Abaye answers that the decree was necessary in an instance
where Adar had thirty days. It would emerge that the day following the twenty-eight of Adar would
be the twenty-ninth and the three would be no prohibition on the thirtieth. Since the first of Nissan
was declared to be a festival, the thirtieth of Adar will be prohibited since it is the day preceding
the first of Nissan.

Rav Ashi answers that declaring the first of Nissan as a festival is necessary even when Adar has
twenty-nine days. If the twenty-ninth is only prohibited due to its being the day following the
twenty-eighth, it would be forbidden to fast but eulogizing would be permitted; now that the
twenty-ninth is located between two festivals, it was considered a festival in itself and even
eulogizing would be forbidden.

The Gemora asks another question on this segment of Megillas Taanis. Why was it necessary to
say, “from the eighth of Nissan,” the eighth of Nissan is anyway subject to the laws against
eulogizing because it was included in the first festival (the first eight days of Nissan because of
the debate regarding the tamid)?

The Gemora answers that if for some reason, the Chachamim would abolish the first festival, the
eighth of Nissan would still be prohibited because of the second decree. The Gemora concludes
that we could utilize the same answer to the challenge raised before. The braisa needed to teach
that the twenty-ninth of Adar is prohibited on account that it is the day preceding the first of Nissan
even though it would have been prohibited anyway since it is the day following the twenty-eighth
of Nissan. This is just in case the festival of the twenty-eighth was abolished; the twenty-ninth
would still be prohibited.

SHMUEL’S RULINGS

The Gemora asks a contradiction regarding Shmuel’s rulings pertaining to the laws discussed in
Megillas Taanis. Shmuel rules that the halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Meir who maintains
that when eulogizing is prohibited on a particular day, the prohibition extends only to the day
before and not the day after. Yet, Shmuel is also quoted as ruling in accordance with Rabbi Shimon
ben Gamliel who holds that only the days that were declared as festivals are prohibited but the day
preceding and the day following the festival is permitted. The Gemora answers that initially
Shmuel thought that Rabbi Meir was the most lenient opinion and therefore he ruled like him
(since the prohibition against fasting is only a Rabbinical one). When he discovered that Rabbi
Shimon ben Gamliel was even more lenient, he retracted and ruled according to him.

RABBI YOCHANAN’S OPINION

It was said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that the halacha is in accordance with the opinion of
Rabbi Yosi. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba clarified this ruling. On a day that Megillas Taanis declared
not to fast on them, Rabbi Yochanan ruled that the halacha is like Rabbi Yosi that it is forbidden
to fast on the preceding day as well (but not on the following day). However, regarding a day that
Megillas Taanis prohibited eulogizing,

7
Rabbi Yochanan rules in accordance with Rabbi Meir that only the day preceding will be subject
to the prohibition of eulogizing. (It emerges according to Rabbi Yochanan, that any day mentioned
in Megillas Taanis that prohibits eulogizing or fasting, the halacha would be that the preceding
day will also be prohibited but not on the day which follows.) The Gemora asks on Rabbi
Yochanan from a Mishna which would seemingly indicate that the day preceding a minor festival
recorded in Megillas Taanis will not be prohibited. Since it is an anonymous Mishna, Rabbi
Yochanan should rule according to that opinion.

The Gemora cites the Mishna in Megillah that even though the Megillah is sometimes read earlier
than the normal day, eulogizing and fasting would be permitted on those days. The Gemora
proceeds to analyze as to which day precisely the Mishna is referring to. It cannot mean the
fourteenth since that day is Purim and Megillas Taanis explicitly prohibits eulogizing and fasting.
It cannot be referring to the thirteenth since that day is Yom Nikanor, which is a minor festival
mentioned in Megillas Taanis. It cannot be referring to the twelfth since that day is Yom Turyanus,
which is also a festival mentioned in Megillas Taanis.

The only remaining day that it can be referring to is the eleventh. The Mishna is ruling that the
Megillah can be read on the eleventh but there are no prohibitions against fasting or eulogizing
even though this is the day preceding Yom Turyanus. This is inconsistent with Rabbi Yochanan’s
opinion that the halacha is in accordance with Rabbi Yosi. The Gemora answers that in fact, the
Mishna is referring to the twelfth; and the answer to the objection raised above is that the
Chachamim had subsequently abolished the festival of Yom Turyanus because of two pious
brothers who were killed on that day. The Gemora persists that it should still be prohibited from
fasting on the twelfth because it is the day preceding Yom Nikanor.

The Gemora answers that if the tragedy was sufficient enough of a reason to abolish the festival,
we cannot decree that it is prohibited to fast on the account of it being the day preceding Yom
Nikanor.

NIKANOR AND TURYANUS

The Gemora proceeds to explain the festival of Yom Nikanor and Yom Turyanus. Yom Nikanor
celebrated the death of Nikanor, a Greek general, who would wave his hand at Yerushalayim and
its vicinity and say, "when will these fall into my hands so that I can trample it?" When the
Hasmoneans succeeded in driving the Greeks from Israel, he was captured. They cut off his thumbs
and big toes and hung them by the gates of Yerushalayim. This incident occurred on the thirteenth
of Adar and they declared this day as a minor festival.

Yom Turyanus celebrated the death of Turyanus, a Roman officer who put two Jews - Papus and
Lulianus - to death. Before doing so, he mocked them publicly, challenging the Jewish God to
intervene on their behalf, as He was reputed to have done on behalf of Chananya, Misha'el and
Azariah. Papus and Lulianus responded that they were not deserving of divine intervention, and
neither was Turyanus on the level of Nevuhadnezzar to have a miracle take place because of him.

They concluded that Hashem probably had made him (Turyanus) the instrument of their death in
order to punish him for it. Immediately after their death, messengers from Rome arrived who

8
removed him from his position and cracked his head with clubs. Since this incident occurred on
the twelfth of Adar, they declared this day as a minor festival.

FASTING ON ROSH CHODESH

The Mishna cited Rabban Gamliel who said that the Chachamim would never decree that the first
day of the series of fasts should be on Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah, or Purim. If the fasts began
already and one of the days of the fasts fell out on Rosh Chodesh, we would not interrupt the fasts.
Rav Acha explains that this is only correct if there were already three fasts; then we continue even
though one of the fast days fell on Rosh Chodesh. Rabbi Assi maintains that this is true even if
they fasted just once.

The Mishna had stated that Rabbi Meir maintains that even though Rabban Gamliel said that they
do not interrupt, he would admit that the fast should not be completed. This halacha is identical to
a case where Tisha B’av fell on Erev Shabbos. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav that the
Chachamim disagree and maintain that the fast must be completed. Mar Zutra said in the name of
Rav Huna that the halacha is in accordance with the opinion of the Chachamim.

WE SHALL RETURN TO YOU, SEDER TAANIYOS KEITZAD

CAN ONE VOLUNTEER TO DIE TO SAVE THE OTHERS?

Our Gemora relates the following incident: Yom Turyanus celebrated the death of Turyanus, a
Roman officer who put two Jews - Papus and Lulianus - to death. Before doing so, he mocked
them publicly, challenging the Jewish God to intervene on their behalf, as He was reputed to have
done on behalf of Chananya, Misha'el and Azariah. Papus and Lulianus responded that they were
not deserving of divine intervention, and neither was Turyanus on the level of Nevuhadnezzar to
have a miracle take place because of him. They concluded that Hashem probably had made him
(Turyanus) the instrument of their death in order to punish him for it. Immediately after their death,
messengers from Rome arrived who removed him from his position and cracked his head with
clubs. Since this incident occurred on the twelfth of Adar, they declared this day as a minor festival.
Rashi explains that Papus and Lulianus were righteous men. The emperor’s daughter was found
murdered and they accused the Jews of committing the crime. The emperor threatened to kill all
the Jews unless they could produce the murderer. Papus and Lulianus falsely admitted to the crime
and they were the only ones executed by Turyanus.

There is a question discussed in halacha if a person is permitted to volunteer to die in order to save
the lives of other people. Some say that it is even a mitzvah to do so.

The Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah 69) proves the permissibility of this act from the story of Papus and
Lulianus), about whom the Gemora (Bava Basra 10b) says that no person is allowed into their
exclusive area in Olam HaBa. However, the reason for this is a dispute among the Poskim. The
Chazon Ish (ad. loc.) says that the reason for this is that this is considered primarily an act of saving
others and not an act of getting oneself killed.

9
On the other hand, the Binyan Tzion (2:173) states that the reason for this is that since if he does
not volunteer he will die in any event, it is permitted. Bari Veshema (bariveshema.blogspot.com
10/25/06) cites the above and elaborates on many issues related to this. Here is the entire
discussion.
The 9/11 scenario in Halachah

A. Background

Is it permissibile to shoot down a plane full of passengers in the 9/11 (or the Corey Lidle) scenario,
where the plane headed for a building with occupants? The passengers of the plane will certainly
die upon impact, and some of the occupants of the building will likely die if the plane is allowed
to hit the building.

The question is, may one actively deprive the passengers of the plane of Chayei Sha’ah, a short
span of life, for the sake of preserving the extended life span of the building occupants. The place
to begin this discussion is the well-known Yerushalmi in the 8th Perek of Masseches Terumos: "A
group of people who were walking on the road and non-Jews accosted them, and said: ‘Give us
one of you and we will kill him, and if not, we will kill all of you, even if they will all get killed
they should not hand over one soul of Israel. If they designated one like Sheva the son of Bichri
[In Shmuel II:20 Sheva ben Bichri is demanded by Yoav, the general of David’s army, for rebelling
against the king] they should hand him over and not get killed. R’ Shimon ben Lakish said: This
is only so if he is liable for death, like Sheva ben Bichri. And R’ Yochanan said: Even though he
is not liable for death like Sheva ben Bichri (it is still permissible to hand over the one who was
singled out)."

The first Halacha here, that where no particular individual was singled out it is forbidden to hand
anyone over, even if they will all die as a result, is recorded in Rambam (Yesodei HaTorah 5:5)
and by the Rema (Yoreh De’ah 157:1). This requires some elucidation. Generally speaking, one is
obligated to give up his life rather than murder another, Why - "‫ דדמא דידך סומק טפי מאי חזית‬of Sevara
a son based do you think your blood is redder?", meaning that there is no benefit in killing the
other person, since either way a Jew will die, so there is no reason to allow the murder. However,
in the case in the Yerushalmi, if they do not hand over one person, they will all die, including the
person being handed over, so why do we not allow the handing over of one person to save the
others?

The Kesef Mishneh on the Rambam (ad. loc.) explains that the Sevara of Mai Chazis is only
necessary when the nonJew who is asking you to kill has designated another particular Jew to be
killed. In this case, however, even without the Sevara of Mai Chazis it is clearly forbidden to hand
over one Jew, since there is no way to determine who should be handed over, and we cannot
condemn one to death more than any of the others, and therefore they must all die and not hand
anyone over.

B. Can one volunteer to die to save the others?

10
Yes. In fact, it is a Mitzvah to do so. The Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deah 69) proves the permissibility
of this act from the story of Papus and Lulianus (who confessed to a crime of murder that they did
not commit in order to save the Jews who were under threat - Rashi to Taanis 18b), about whom
the Gemara (Bava Basra 10b) says that no person is allowed into their exclusive area in Olam
HaBa. However, the reason for this is a dispute among the Poskim. The Chazon Ish (ad. loc.) says
that the reason for this is that this is considered primarily an act of saving others and not an act of
getting oneself killed. On the other hand, the Binyan Tzion (2:173) states that the reason for this
is that since if he does not volunteer he will die in any event, it is permitted. (An apparent practical
difference would be in a situation where the person who is volunteering has a chance of escaping,
where the Chazon Ish would still permit it, whereas the Binyan Tzion would not. This is not the
9/11 scenario, however.)

C. Can we assume that the passengers on the plane would willingly volunteer, and shoot
down the plane?

In a Sefer called Mishnas Pikuach Nefesh [by R’ Yosef Aryeh Lorincz, Bnei Brak 5763] (Simman
50), the author (when discussing this 9/11 scenario) assumes that there is an Anan Sahadei - a
clearly valid assumption - that the passengers would be willing to give up their lives in this
scenario, and it should be allowed. However, he points out that usually there are minors (below
Bar Mitzvah) on the plane, and for them the Anan Sahadei will not help (I assume, since they
cannot waive their own lives, and we cannot do it for them). Additionally, in the Sefer B’Chol
Nafsh’cha (10:(32)) the author is not sure whether one can volunteer to be actively killed by a Jew
to save the many. (He says that from the Yam Shel Shlomo to Bava Kama (8:59) it would seem
that is allowed, based on what he writes regarding Shaul HaMelech committing suicide, but it still
requires more thought).

D. What is the Halachah in the dispute between R’ Yochanan and Reish Lakish?

When the non-Jews do designate someone to be killed, who is not liable for the death penalty, may
he be handed over?

This is a Machlokes Rishonim. The Rambam (ad. loc.) says that they may not hand over the Jew
who has been singled out, in accordance with the position of Reish Lakish, whereas many other
Rishonim decide the Halachah in accordance with R’ Yochanan [The Beis Yosef (Yoreh Deah
157) quoting the Rash to the Mishnah in Terumos and the Ran to Yoma 82a; Bach understanding
of Semag (Lavin 165) and Semak (78); Issur V’Hetter HeAroch (Klal 59).] The Rema (Yoreh
Deah ad loc) brings both opinions. The Bach and Taz (157:7) decide the Halachah in accordance
with the Rambam. However, in Teshuvos Rema (11) he holds that the primary opinion is like
Rabbi Yochanan. This is also the position of the Shaar Efraim (72), Tiferes Yisrael (Mishna
Terumos 8:12) and the Chazon Ish (ad. loc.) say that the Halachah is in accordance with Rabbi
Yochanan. Most authorities hold that Rabbi Yochanan’s position is only true if the one who is
singled out will certainly die in any event.

E. What is the rationale for R’ Yochanan’s position?

11
This is a further dispute. From many Rishonim (Kesef Mishneh ad loc., Rashi to Sanhedrin 74b
s.v. Yatza, Ran (Yoma 4a in the Rif folio), Ritva and Maharam Chalawa to Pesachim 25) it seems
that the reason for R’ Yochanan’s position is that the Sevara of the Kesef Mishneh quoted above
for the prohibition of handing one of the people over is no longer applicable. Since the one who
has been singled out is going to die anyhow, there is no reason why he should not be handed over
to spare the others. However, the Maharam Shick (Yoreh Deah 155), the Chazon Ish (ad loc) and
Igros Moshe (Yoreh Deah 2:60) all say that the reason why he may be handed over is because,
after he has been singled out, he has the status of a Rodef. [However, the Igros Moshe there does
end up proving that the Ran and the Rash hold of the first reason as above.]

F. Does this hold true even at the expense of the condemned’s Chayei
Sha’ah?

Yes. This is clear from the Chazon Ish and the Igros Moshe. R’ Moshe explains that the reason for
this is because whatever time there is in excess of that Chayei Sha’ah which they are depriving
that person of, only he is a Rodef on the others, but they are not a Rodef on him for that time span,
since he will not have that time to live in any event. Presumably, according to the first reason
mentioned in the Rishonim as well, there is still reason enough to hand the one who is singled out
over the others, since his lifespan is inevitably limited to Chayei Sha’ah. [Although the Yad
Avraham on the margin to the Shulchan Aruch seems to disagree, the Sefer B’Chol Nafsh’cha says
that that position is in accordance with Reish Lakish].

G. Can we extrapolate from the Hetter to hand over the person, that it
allowed to actively kill him to save the others?

The Meiri (Sanhedrin 72b s.v Zeh) as well as the Arugos HaBosem (brought in the Hagaha to the
Mordechai (end of Perek Arba Misos) say that, while one may hand over the Jew to a non-Jew,
one may not actively kill the Jew. However, the Sefer B’Chol Nafsh’cha says that this is not
implied by the simple reading of the other Rishonim (since the logic used should apply to direct
murder as well). If we were to decide the Halachah in accordance with the position of Rabbi
Yochanan, then, it would seem that it is permissible to shoot down the plane, since they will die in
any event, and the occupants of the building will be saved as a result. However, we cannot simply
discount the weighty position of the Rambam on this issue, as there are major Acharonim who
decide the Halachah like him, as above.

H. Are there Hetterim even if we were to decide the Halachah in accordance

with Reish Lakish?

Perhaps.

a) There are positions in the Acharonim (Lechem Mishneh to Rambam ad loc., Tosefes Yom
HaKippurim (Yoma 82) who hold that even Reish Lakish would only argue if there is some slim
chance that the person singled out will escape. But if there is no chance at all, he would agree that
he should be handed over.

12
b) The Chazon Ish (ad loc) discusses the following scenario: "We must delve into a case where
one sees an arrow about to kill many people, and he can divert it to a different side, where it will
kill only one person on another side, and those on this side will be saved, and if he were to do
nothing, the many will die and the one will live. It is possible that this is not the same as the case
of handing over someone to be killed, since that handing over is a cruel act of killing someone,
and in this act there is no salvation of others in the inherent nature of the act, it is only that the
particular circumstance caused that this act would bring about salvation to others, so the saving of
the others hinges on the handing over of a Jewish soul. However, in the diversion of the arrow
from one side to the other, there is essentially an act of salvation, and it is not connected at all to
the killing of the individual on the other side, rather it is only now, in this circumstance, that there
is another Jew on the other side. And since on this side many Jews will die, and on the other side
only one, it is possible that we must make every effort to reduce the loss of Jewish life to whatever
extent possible. After all, Lulianus and Papus were killed to save the Jews, as Rashi writes to
Taanis 18b, and they say that no person can stand in their section. However, here may be worse
since he is actively killing, and we only find that we may hand over Jews, but to kill with one’s
hands, perhaps we do not do so, and that which they killed Sheva ben Bichri was because he was
a rebel against the king.

But, this requires more delving into. So, the Chazon Ish has a doubt whether one may do an act
which is primarily one of salvation, which will actively kill an individual, to save the multitudes.
It seems that the accepted position by the Sefarim on the topic is that the Chazon Ish permits this.

[The Sefer B’Chol Nafshecha seems to understand that this case of the Chazon Ish is not really
direct killing. He holds that the Chazon Ish’s doubt is only in real active murder, like swerving a
car away from the many to run over an individual. Though I do not see how that fits into the
language of the Chazon Ish.]

In the Sefer "Chashukei Chemed", which is a collection of Psakim by R’ Yitzchak Zilberstein

Shlit"a of Bnei Brak in order of the Dapim on Pesachim, brings from the preface of the Pnei
Yehoshua to his novellae on Shas, that he had vowed to dedicate his life to delving in to the depths
of the Torah, after he was trapped under some collapsed buildings, and many came to save, "And
those that they killed by their trampling (in the area) were even more than those who had originally
died, although there was no way out of this, since their intent was to save and remove the rubble."

Rav Zilberstein understands that the Pnei Yehoshua is approving of what they did. (It seems to me
that the language of the Pnei Yehoshua implies that the Hetter is because - if they don’t do this
they would all die anyhow, in addition to this being an act with the intent of saving. This would be
a parallel to the 9/11 scenario. Though it is not clear in the Pnei Yehoshua whether he would hold
this to be true even according to Resh Lakish, nevertheless, in the final analysis, he says it is
allowed).

I. Is shooting down the plane primarily an act of saving or of killing?

One could perhaps distinguish between that Pnei Yehoshua and the 9/11 scenario, wherein in the
Pnei Yehoshua’s case they were not actually doing acts of killing, they were only inadvertently
shifting debris that caused people to die. Rav Chaim Kanievsky Shlit"a, quoted in the Sefer

13
Mishnas Pikuach Nefesh, says that he is unsure whether this should be considered an act of killing
or of salvation.

J. Is a situation of war different?

In the Sefer Mishnas Pikuach Nefesh, the author raises the concern that if we were to conclude
that it is impermissible to shoot down the plane, we would be in a terrible quandary. Our enemies
could take a few Jews from their countries, put them on a plane (with a nuclear bomb!) drop it on
the concentration of the Jews! He therefore says that in the context of war, the rules are different.
Here, everyone must fight and be willing to sacrifice his life to save the multitiudes from the
enemy, and therefore it is allowed to down the plane although we are killing Jewish passengers.
This would even be true if there were children on the plane who are not obligated to fight against
the enemy, since that is the Halachah, that in war we sacrifice the few to save the many. And, so,
a plane hijacked by terrorists would come under the rubric of war, and would be permissible,
especially in light of Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky’s position on the impermissibility of ransoming the
kidnapped Rav Hutner, on a hijacked plane, at the time, due to Israel being engaged in a war with
the Arabs since ‘48. [What would be in a case where one is not sure whether a terrorist attack is
being perpetrated, like initially on 9/11, or in the Corey Lidle case, is an interesting question]

K. Conclusion:

We have a number of Tzedadim that would allow for downing the plane: 1) If all the occupants
are adults, based on an assumed volunteering to save the multitudes. 2) If we hold like the many
Rishonim who hold like Rabbi Yochanan, as some Acharonim aver, it would likely be allowed. 3)
Even according to the Rambam and Resh Lakish, if it is clear that they will all die if nothing is
done, some Acharonim say that it is allowed. 4) This may constitute primarily an act of salvation,
with the killing being a side-effect, which is probably allowed according to the Chazon Ish. 5) In
the context of war, this would certainly be permissible.

"YOM TARYANUS" -- TRAJAN DAY

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

The Chachamim instituted that the thirteenth of Adar be observed as a day of commemorative
celebration, called "Yom Taryanus," or Trajan Day. This is one of the Yamim Tovim recorded in
Megilas Ta'anis on which fasting is prohibited. This Yom Tov commemorates the events that
occurred when Taryanus, the wicked Roman emperor, sought to execute Lulianus and Papus, two
Jews who willingly gave up their lives Al Kidush Hash-m and who became known as the "Harugei
Lud." They told Taryanus that Hash-m put them into his hands in order to punish him if he killed
them. He killed them and, indeed, immediately afterwards a delegation arrived from Rome and
killed Taryanus in a gruesome fashion. A Yom Tov was instituted to commemorate the awesome
vengeance that Hash-m demonstrated for His loved ones.

4 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/taanis/insites/tn-dt-018.htm

14
The simple understanding is that this day celebrates Hash-m's act of retribution against the killer,
through which He showed the world that He avenges the blood of His beloved. However,
something tragic also happened on this day -- the righteous Lulianus and Papus were put to death.
Why is it fitting to institute a day of celebration on the day on which two Tzadikim were murdered?
Had they come away alive, there would have been reason to celebrate, but their deaths on that day
should eliminate any cause for celebration.

(a) RASHI explains that initially the Romans decreed annihilation for all of the Jewish people.
Through the martyrdom of Lulianus and Papus, the rest of the Jewish people were saved. It is that
salvation which is celebrated on Yom Taryanus.

(b) The DIKDUKEI SOFRIM records a different Girsa of the Gemara based on the text of a
manuscript which omits the words "nevertheless he killed them." According to that Girsa,
Taryanus did not succeed in killing Lulianus and Papus before his sudden death.
This is also the way the incident is recorded in Megilas Ta'anis (ch. 12) and in Toras Kohanim
(Parshas Emor, ch. 9). Since the evil ruler was killed before he carried out his plan to kill the Jews
and they were miraculously spared, the Chachamim enacted a day of celebration on that date.
This approach explains why the Yerushalmi says that the Chachamim cancelled the celebration of
Yom Taryanus when Lulianus and Papus were killed (and not Shemayah and Achiyah, as the
Gemara here says a few lines earlier). The Yerushalmi means that although the Yom Tov was
instituted when they were saved from the hands of Taryanus, it was annulled when the same two
Tzadikim were killed by another governing body some years later.

This might also be the intention of the ARUCH (recorded in the margin of the Gemara here) who
writes that Shemayah and Achiyah were the Harugei Lud. Why does the Aruch say that Shemayah
and Achiyah were the Harugei Lud when the Beraisa says that Lulianus and Papus were the
brothers killed in "Ludkia" (Lydia, or Lud, as Rashi explains; see also Midrash Koheles Rabah
9:8)? It must be that Shemayah and Achiyah were the Hebrew names of Lulianus and Papus.
(See YEFEH EINAYIM.)

The YEFEH EINAYIM also cites the exact circumstances under which Lulianus and Papus were
eventually killed. He refers to the Yerushalmi (Shevi'is 4:2) which states that Lulianus and Papus
were killed when they refused to drink from a cup which the emperor gave to them, upon which
was inscribed the name of an Avodah Zarah. This event occurred later, after the miraculous
incident with Taryanus. Apparently, when they were killed by the new emperor, the Chachamim
annulled the Yom Tov which had been instituted to commemorate their salvation from the old one.

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

Two examples of minor Second Temple holidays that appear in Megilat Ta’anit as days on which
it is forbidden to fast or to eulogize are the 13th day of Adar, which was known as Yom Nikanor,

5 https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_taanit1824/

15
and the 12th day of Adar, which was known as Yom Trayanus. The Gemara explains the events
that occurred on each of these celebratory days.

Yom Nikanor celebrated the death of Nikanor, a Greek general, who would wave his hand
at Jerusalem and its environs and say, “when will this fall into my hands so that I can crush it?”
When the Hasmoneans succeeded in driving the Greeks from Israel he was captured and killed.

Yom Trayanus celebrated the death of Trayanus, a Roman officer who put two Jews – Papus and
Lulianus – to death. Before doing so, he mocked them publicly, challenging the Jewish God to
intervene on their behalf, as He was reputed to have done on behalf of Hanania, Mishael and
Azariah (see Daniel Chapter 3). Papus and Lulianus responded that they were not deserving of
divine intervention, and neither was Trayanus on the level of Nebuchadnezzar to have a miracle
take place because of him. They concluded that God probably had made him (Trayanus) the
instrument of their death in order to punish him for it. Immediately after their death, messengers
from Rome arrived who removed him from his position and killed him.

It is interesting to note that the 13th of Adar, referred to here as Yom Nikanor, is a day that is on
the Jewish calendar today as a public fast day that we know as Ta’anit Esther. Although Megillat
Ta’anit has been nullified, Hanukkah and Purim are still celebrated, and according to the rules
of Megillat Ta’anit, the day before each of these holidays should also be celebrated; thus a public
fast should be forbidden as well. The Ra’avad explains that although Purim remains a holiday, the
rule forbidding fasts on the day before Purim was abolished. The Ramban points out that
once Yom Nikanor was eliminated, fasting was permitted on that day, and the strength of being
the day before Purim cannot be more significant than the holiday itself. Another approach suggests
that Ta’anit Esther is a unique fast day, one that does not commemorate a period of mourning, but
rather should be seen as part of the remembrance of the victory on Purim.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:6

Our daf (Ta’anit 18a) quotes a fascinating story from Megillat Ta’anit which has been the focus
of much debate among academic scholars and which also provides us with a refreshing perspective
about Jewish activism and diplomacy.

We are taught: ‘On the twenty-eighth [of Adar] good tidings came to the Jews, that they would not
be restricted from Torah [study]. As on one occasion the wicked empire issued a decree of apostasy
against the Jews that they may not occupy themselves with Torah study, that they may not
circumcise their sons, and that they must desecrate Shabbat. [What did] Yehuda ben Shammua
and his colleagues do? They went and sought the advice of a certain matron whose [wisdom was
sought] by all the prominent people of Rome. She said to them: “Arise and protest at night!” They
went and protested at night, saying: “O Heaven! Are we not brothers? Are we not children of one
father? Are we not the children of one mother? How are we different from any other nation and
tongue that you single us out and issue against us evil decrees?” [Their cries were effective], and
[the authorities] annulled [the decrees], and they made that day a holiday.’

6 www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

16
According to some scholars, this story - as told here and with some variations elsewhere - describes
events taking place around the war of Bar Kochba, with evidence stemming from the fact that
Rome is directly referenced in the story, that Yehuda ben Shammua, a student of Rabbi Meir, lived
during that period, and that some versions of this story refer to it taking place during a time of ‫שמד‬
(persecution) which many scholars consider to be a term specifically used with reference to
persecutions that took place during the Bar Kochba period. However, there are those who assert -
on the basis of alternative versions of the story - that it refers to the suspension of decrees of
Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and that various details were then overlaid in the ensuing centuries.

Yet notwithstanding this debate, I would also like to focus on the strategy advised by the matron
and followed by the rabbinic leadership, because it is an approach that is not regularly encountered
during times of persecution. Rather than it simply being a complaint about unfair treatment, the
Jews made a stirring argument about the equality of humanity; and rather than simply criticizing
our persecutors and their evil ways, we offered them encouragement to adopt a different, and more
just and moral way, that acknowledges how all human beings are created equal.

Oftentimes, battles are necessarily won when we subdue our enemy. Yet, in this brief snapshot of
a particular encounter, an argument is won by lifting and encouraging our enemy to see things
differently, and specifically, to see the one who they think is their enemy with different eyes. And
by doing so, we can help them realise that however different we may seem or look, “Are we not
brothers? Are we not children of one father? Are we not the children of one mother?”.

Nicanor’s Day

Rabbi Elliot Goldberg writes:7

Megillah Taanit is a first-century document that lists holidays on which public fasting is
prohibited, which is why it is quoted repeatedly in Tractate Taanit, including on today’s
daf. While Purim and Hanukkah are the only celebrations noted in the work that are still
observed today, the Talmud discusses several others, including Nicanor’s Day:

What is the origin of Nicanor’s Day? As it is taught : Nicanor was one of the generals
in the Greek army, and each and every day he would wave his hand over Judea and
Jerusalem and say: When will this city fall into my hands, and I shall trample it?

And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame the Greeks and emerged victorious over
them, they killed Nicanor, cut off his thumbs and big toes, and hung them on the gates
of Jerusalem, saying: The mouth that spoke with pride, and the hands that waved over
Jerusalem, may vengeance be taken against them.

7 myjewishlearning.com

17
The battles between the Hasmoneans and Nicanor’s army take place just after the events
connected to the holiday of Hanukkah. The story preserved here is brief and focuses upon
Nicanor’s defeat and dismemberment, but a more elaborate version is found in Maccabees
II.

There we learn the story of Alcimus, a former high priest who is looking to regain his
position in the Temple. To accomplish this, Alcimus seeks the favor of Demetreus, the
successor to Antiochus (the ruler of the Syrian-Greeks and the villainous king of the
Hanukkah story). When asked by Demetreus about the intentions of the Jews in Judea,
Alcimus reports that the Hasmoneans “are keeping up war, stirring up sedition, and will
not let the kingdom attain tranquility.”

So Demetreus sends Nicanor, a commander of the elephant cavalry, to defeat Judah

Maccabee, restore the peace and serve as governor of Judea. Nicanor goes to Judea, but
instead of making war with Judah, whom he fears to confront in battle, he seeks a truce
with him. This serves Nicanor well, but not Alcimus, who hopes that a Syrian-Greek
victory will return him to his role as high priest.

Alcimus sends word of the truce to Demetreus, who orders Nicanor to capture Judah and
send him to Antioch, the seat of Demetreus’ empire, as a prisoner. Left with no choice but
to obey the king’s order, Nicanor leads his troops to battle and is defeated by Judah.

Just as they celebrated the restoration of the Temple, Judah and his followers celebrated
Nicanor’s defeat and established their day of victory as a holiday for all of time. As
Maccabees II relates:

And they all decreed by public vote never to let this day go unobserved, but to celebrate
the thirteenth day of the twelfth month — which is called Adar in the Aramaic language
— the day before Mordecai’s day [i.e. Purim].

According to our daf, the celebration of Nicanor’s Day is negated by the deaths of
Shemaya and Ahiya, two brothers killed on the same date as Nicanor yet whose story is
lost to the fog of time. Ultimately, the story of Alcimus, Demetreus and Nicanor faded
away, too. The First and Second Books of Maccabees were excluded from the Hebrew
Bible by the rabbis for reasons we can’t totally be sure of, and their contents are not widely
studied. Yet these books remain important source documents, offering (among other
things) the most detailed accounts of Hanukkah’s origin story. Some have even made the
case that it might be meaningful to revive the celebration of Nicanor’s Day.

18
 Battle between the Maccabees and the Bacchides by Jean Fouquet

Miracles and fasts

Mark Kerzner writes:8

A number of miracles happened to the Jews during the time of the Second Temple, and "The Scroll
of Fasts" records when one is not supposed to fast or eulogize the dead, because of the miracles
that happened on these days. First the Talmud deals with the details of these prohibitions, and then
describes the miracles.

8 https://talmudilluminated.com/taanit/taanit18.html

19
The daily sacrifice in the Temple has to be brought from communal funds, but the school of
Sadducees argued that it should be brought by an individual. The argument lasted for eight days,
from the first of Nissan, and the Sages convinced their opponents. This was considered a miracle.

The school of Baitus about the date of Shavuot: they understood the word "Shabbat" as Saturday,
but the Sages had the tradition that in this context it means a Holiday of Passover. Again, the Sages
convinced them, and this miracle was celebrated for all the days when the argument took place.

A Greek governor Nikanor would wave every day toward the Temple, saying "When will it fall
into my hands and I will trample it?" When the Maccabees prevailed, they cut off his thumbs and
big toes and hung them at the gates of Jerusalem, saying "The mouth that that said it, the hands
that waved and the feet that would trample - let revenge be taken against them." Incidentally, they
cut off his head, too.

Turianus accused the Jews of murdering his daughter. Two men, Lullianus and Papus stepped up
and falsely admitted the crime. Before Turianus executed them, he said, "You are from the people
of Chanania, Mishael and Azarya, let a miracle happen to you!" They answered, "They were
perfectly righteous, but we are not, and Nebuchadnezzar was a proper king, but you are a
commoner. However, God chose you to execute us, so that He can then take revenge against you."
Turianus nevertheless killed them right away, and at that very moment messengers arrived from
Rome to execute him in turn. This happened on the twelfth of Adar.

Later all these minor holidays were abolished because of subsequent sad events that occurred on
these days.

The Mishnah taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ruled that if the series of the more severe
fasts would coincide with Rosh Chodesh, Chanukah or Purim that the fast would continue as
scheduled, in spite of the festive nature of the day.9 Rabbi Meir explained that, nevertheless, in
such a case, the fast is not to be completed until the end of the day, but people should eat in the
late afternoon.

9 https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Taanis%20018.pdf

20
In the Gemara, Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rav explains that this is only the opinion of Rabbi
Meir, but the sages hold that the fast should be completed until the end of the day, and this is the
halacha. Tosafos writes that the halachah to complete the fast until its very end is only true when
we are dealing with a fast which coincides with Rosh Chodesh. However, fasting is not allowed
on Chanukah or Purim, even under the crisis conditions of a drought.

discusses whether Tosafos condones fasting for part of the day, and
only disallows completing the fast on Chanukah or Purim, or whether fasting even part of the day
is also prohibited. The reason Chanukah and Purim are different than Rosh Chodesh in this regard
is that they are referred to as days of festive meals and celebration (‫) ושמחה משתה ימי‬.

Korban Nesanel notes that these days are also called ‫ טוב יום‬. Maharsha to Eiruvin 41a questions
the distinction which Tosafos makes, because the Gemara clearly associates the halacha of
completing the fast in reference to Chanukah and Purim. This is also the ruling of Shulchan Aruch
(572:2). Korban Nesanel (based on the Rosh siman 24) resolves the opinion of Tosafos with the
Gemara in Eiruvin by saying that Tosafos is speaking about a private fast, one accepted by an
individual. In this case, one would not complete the fast if it coincided with Chanukah or Purim.
However, the Gemara in Eiruvin is dealing with a public fast day. Here, the fast would be
completed until its end. This is not only the case if it occurred on Rosh Chodesh, but also if it falls
out on Chanukah or Purim.

Rashi (1), according to one version, explains that Caesar’s daughter was found murdered and the
non-Jews accused the Jews of committing this crime. Popus and Lulinus stepped forward and
confessed for the crime and by doing so they saved the rest of the Jews. Poskim question whether
one can infer from this story that it is permitted for one to put himself in danger to save the life of
another.

Rav Yitzchok Yaakov Weiss (2), the Minchas Yitzchok, wrote at length about the permissibility
to donate a kidney to another. Rav Moshe Feinstein (3) wrote a response to this teshuva and ruled
that if the kidney donation puts the life of the donor at risk it is certainly prohibited because it is
not permitted for one to endanger his life to save another. As far as our Gemara is concerned, Rav
Feinstein wrote that one cannot infer that it is permitted because the case of the Gemara involves
putting one’s life in danger to save a large group of Jews. Although it may be permitted to risk
one’s life to save a group of Jews there is no leniency to endanger one’s life for an individual.

Rav Avrohom Yishayah Karelitz (4), the Chazon Ish, also assumes that the leniency of our Gemara
is limited to a case where many Jews are saved but analyzes the question from a slightly different
angle. He wonders whether it would be permitted to divert a missile so that it kills only a few
people to prevent it from continuing on its path which would result in a greater loss of life. Is it
permitted to divert that missile since the net loss will be smaller or is it prohibited because it

21
causing the death of other Jews? Chazon Ish wrote that it is permitted because we look at this act
as an attempt to save lives rather than an attempt to kill others. Consequently, the act is permitted
even though there will be some loss of life.

Proof to this approach is our Gemara. We perceive the act of Popus and Lulinus as one of salvation
rather than suicide because their intention was to save others and their death was not the intention
behind their choice. Chazon Ish then expresses some hesitancy on the matter because in our
Gemara the loss of life was the result of inaction, i.e. Lulinus and Popus were killed by the non-
Jews, as opposed to the case of the missile where the loss of life is the result of an action and
therefore, may be prohibited.

In our daf we find that the wicked ruler Tarianus tried to instigate what might be considered the
first blood libel in history. When Tarianus mocked the two brothers who had volunteered to
shoulder the burden of false guilt, they answered: “Our sins have made us deserve of death, but
since you choose to kill us on a baseless charge, God will hold you accountable!” Indeed, just
after they were killed, officers arrived from Rome and executed Tarianus for his own crimes.

It was midnight, and the Pele Yoetz, zt”l, was on his way to shul to learn until the morning prayers
as was his custom. As he traversed the deserted streets, he spotted the parnas of the community
turning into the “red-light” district.

The Rav realized that he was surely heading to sin, and so he followed. When the parnas realized
that someone was tailing him, he took a circuitous route. When he finally arrived at his destination,
he was shocked to find the Rav sitting on the steps of the sinful place reciting a heartfelt tikkun
chatzos. The parnas thought that he would wait the Rav out, but after the Pele Yoetz finished
chatzos, he immediately began to learn mishnayos! Eventually, the parnas gave up and went home.

The next morning, the parnas claimed to have seen the Rav going to sin the night before, and the
Pele Yoetz refused to answer his public charge. The community fired him. The Rav and his family
were soon forced to sell their possessions to secure a meager subsistence. After a few weeks of
this, the only things of value remaining to the family were their rare seforim. When the Rav handed
the first of them to his wife to pawn, two tears fell from his eyes.

22
A short time later, the Rav was called to visit the parnas who suddenly had been struck ill. When
the Rav arrived, the parnas confessed, “My time is short. I know that I have been punished for
ruining your name with my own sin. Please forgive me!” The parnas died, and the Rav was
reinstated. The community could see for themselves that Divine justice had been at work in the
death of the parnas!

Column of Trajan (as seen through the ruins of the Basilica Ulpia in the
Forum of Trajan), Carrara marble, completed 113 C.E., Rome, dedicated to
Emperor Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus b. 53 , d. 117 C.E.) in honor
of his victory over Dacia (now Romania) 101-02 and 105-06 C.E.

Lulianos and Paphos (alt. sp. Julianus and Pappus) (2nd-century CE) were two wealthy Jewish
brothers who lived in Laodicea in Asia Minor, contemporaries with Rabbi Yehoshua ben
Hananiah, and who suffered martyrdom at the hands of the Roman legate.
An anecdote about the lives of these two illustrious Grecian-Jewish citizens has come down in
the Midrashic literature stating that, during the days of Hadrian, the emperor mulled over the
thought of rebuilding Israel's Temple. When the news reached Lulianos and Paphos who were very
wealthy, they set-up tables from Acco to Antioch, hoping thereby to allow Jewish pilgrims to
exchange their local currency for coins in specie, or else provide other basic needs for the people
before proceeding on to Jerusalem.

23
In the Babylonian Talmud is mentioned the "slain of Lydia" [sic] (another name for Laodicea) and
which Talmudic commentators have explained to be referring to two Jewish brothers with
Hellenized names, Julian (Lulianos) of Alexandria and Paphos, the son of Judah, who willingly
made themselves martyrs to save the entire Jewish population of Laodicea from annihilation. Their
real names were Shamayah and Ahiyah. According to ancient Jewish accounts, a non-Jewish child
had been found slain in their city. The blame for the child's murder was laid upon the Jews of that
city. The governor intervened by threatening to kill all the Jews of the city unless the perpetrator
of the vile act would deliver himself up to be punished. When no one could be found to take
responsibility for the act and the governor was insistent on punishing all the Jews, Lulianos and
Paphos, being "wholly righteous men," willingly took responsibility for the death of the child and
were duly executed. Their deaths on the 5th day of the lunar month Adar were marked by public
fasting among Jews, each year on the anniversary of their deaths.
According to the Talmud and Midrash, Lulianos' and Paphos' executioner was a man named
Trajanus (Turyannos). When Trajanus desired to kill Lulianos and Paphos, elsewhere described as
being on account of their confessing to the murder of a young gentile girl, the daughter of a king,
who was found slain in the city –– for the gentiles of that city had laid the blame upon the Jews of
the city, and they were about to take vengeance upon the entire Jewish population until Lulianos
and his brother, Paphos, confessed to the murder (which they had not committed, but only
confessed to save the lives of their fellow countrymen), the two men were summoned before
Trajanus for questioning.
Trajanus began their trial by mocking them, saying to them: "If you are from the nation of
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, let your God come and save you from my hand, just as He saved
Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah from the hand of Nebuchadnezzar." To this they replied:
"Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were full-fledged righteous people, and they were worthy that a
miracle should be performed for them, and Nebuchadnezzar was a worthy king, and it was fitting
that a miracle be performed through him, but you are merely an unjust commoner, and one who is
not fitting that a miracle be performed through him, seeing that we have been condemned to
destruction by the Omnipresent [for our misdeeds]. And if you do not kill us, the Omnipresent has
many other executioners. And if men do not kill us, the Omnipresent has many bears and lions in
His world that can hurt us and kill us. Instead, the Holy One, Blessed be He, placed us into your
hands only so that He will avenge our blood in the future."
No sooner had he killed them than dispatches (tabula) arrived from Rome (others say two officials,
or two emissaries, carrying orders against their execution), but since the act had already been done
by the Roman soldier, he, himself, was sentenced to die by way of "cudgeling" (fustuarium), a
form of capital punishment inflicted upon Roman soldiers for the highest military offenses.
Some scholars ascribe these events to Lusius Quietus of Lysia, when he was appointed Roman
governor of Judaea by Trajan, and who was later punished by Hadrian the emperor. The difficulty,
however, with this assumption is that the primary sources all place these events in Laodicea, a
place in Asia Minor and far away from the jurisdiction of Lusius Quietus.

24
Reaction
The deliverance of the city's Jewish community was received with relief by world's Jewry, and the
day on which their executioner had been killed himself, the 12th day of the lunar month Adar, was
transcribed in the Jewish record books and in the Scroll of Fasting as a day of public celebration,
and one whereon it was forbidden for Jews to fast. Later, the day of celebration was cancelled,
since two great rabbis, Abtalion and Shemaiah, were known to have been executed some years
earlier on the same day.

Trajan

The war against Trajan

Roman-Jewish Wars: name of several military engagements between the Roman Republic
(later: Empire) and various groups of Jews between 63 BCE and 136 CE.

Jona Lendering writes:10

The Roman emperor Trajan had decided to bring peace to the eastern borders of his empire for
once and for all. Therefore, in 115 CE, he attacked Armenia and the kingdom of the Parthians. His

10 https://www.livius.org/contributor/jona-lendering/

25
operations were a brilliant success, and he was to be the only Roman emperor to sail on the Persian
Gulf. However, after he had created new provinces - Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria - and
believed he had been victorious, several Messianic revolts broke out similtaneously. The reasons
are unclear to us, but the appearance of a comet, a Messianic symbol, may be the explanation; it is
referred to in Chinese sources (and perhaps Juvenal, Satires, 6.407). The diasporic Jews of
Egypt, Cyrenaica and Cyprus were among the rebels, but the newly conquered region of
Mesopotamia was unquiet too.

Their revolt started in Cyrene, where one Lukuas - sometimes called Andreas - ordered the Jews
to destroy the pagan temples of Apollo, Artemis, Hecate, Demeter, Isis and Pluto, and to assail the
worshippers. The latter fled to Alexandria, where they captured and killed many Jews. (With a
population of some 150,000 Jews, Alexandria was Judaism's largest city.) In 116, the Jews
organized themselves and had their revenge. The temples of gods like Nemesis, Hecate and Apollo
were destroyed; the same fate befell the tomb of Pompey, the Roman general who had captured
Jerusalem almost two centuries before.

Meanwhile, the Cyrenaican Jews plundered the Egyptian countryside, reaching Thebes, six
hundred kilometers upstream. The future historian Appian of Alexandria records that he made a
providential escape from a party of Jews pursuing him in the Nile marshes (more...). There was
nothing the Roman governor Marcus Rutilius Lupus could do, although he sent a legion (III
Cyrenaica or XXII Deiotariana) to protect the inhabitants of Memphis.

Cyrene's temple of Hecate, which was destroyed by Jews

Trajan sent out two expeditionary forces. One, consisting of VII Claudia, restored order in Cyprus;
the other was to attack Lukuas' rebels and was commanded by Quintus Marcius Turbo. The Roman
general sailed to Alexandria, defeated the Jews in several pitched battles and killed thousands of

26
enemies, not only those in Egypt but also those of Cyrene. It is unclear what became of Lukuas,
except for the fact that according to our Greek source Eusebius he had styled himself 'king' (=
Messiah?). After this war, much of northern Africa had to be repopulated. The emperor Trajan and
his successor Hadrian confiscated Jewish property to pay for the reconstruction of the destroyed
temples.

Trajan was afraid that this revolt would spread to the Jews in the rebellious eastern provinces.
Perhaps, there was some cause for his anxiousness. After the end of the revolt in Mesopotamia,
someone had written the Book of Elchasai, in which the end of the world was predicted within
three years. Of course, Trajan did not read this book, but he may have sensed that the Jews
remained restless.

This inscription, in one of the bathhouses of Cyrene, commemorates how the

city was rebuilt after the "tumulto Iudaico", the disorders caused by the Jews.

Therefore, he ordered the commander of his Mauritanian auxiliaries, Lusius Quietus, to clean the
suspects out of these regions. Quietus organized a force and killed many Cypriote, Mesopotamian
and Syrian Jews - in effect wiping them out; as a reward, he was appointed governor of Judaea.
(He is one of the few blacks known to have made a career in Roman service.) He was responsible
for a forced policy of hellenization; in response, the rabbis ordered the Jewish fathers not to teach
their sons Greek (Mishnah, Sota 9.14).

Meanwhile, Trajan had reached his military aims and returned home. On his way back, he fell ill,
and not much later, he died (8 August 117). His successor Hadrian gave up the newly conquered
countries and dismissed Lusius Quietus, who was killed in the Summer of 118.

27
 Stylised Berber Cavalry under Lusius Quietus, fighting against the Dacians.
From the Column of Trajan.

TRAJAN:
Isidore Singer and Samuel Krauss write:11
Roman emperor from 98 to 117. Like Vespasian, Titus, and Hadrian, he is frequently mentioned
by Jewish writers; and he exercised a profound influence upon the history of the Jews throughout
the Babylonia, Palestine, and Hellenistic Diaspora. His ambition led him to the farthest eastern
boundaries of the Roman empire, where he warred against the Parthians, although in the meantime
the Jews arose in Egypt and in Cyrene "as though carried away by some wild and riotous spirit"
Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iv. 2). The insurrection at Alexandria is mentioned in a papyrus fragment
in the Louvre, which refers to a suit brought before the emperor by an Alexandrian and a Jew,
although the ruler there designated may be Hadrian, Trajan's successor (see T. Reinach in "R. E.
J." xxxvii. 218).
The task of subduing the Jews in Egypt and Cyrene was entrusted by Trajan to Marcius Turbo,
with whom the emperor is confused in rabbinical sources, which frequently write the name Trajan
"Tarkinos" (Krauss, in "R. E. J." xxx. 206, xxxi. 47; idem, "Lehnwörter," ii. 273). Cyprus also was
the scene of a violent Jewish uprising, which seems likewise to have been quelled by Turbo. In the

11 https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14474-trajan

28
same year (116), or possibly a year later, when Trajan thought the Parthians subdued, the Jews of
Mesopotamia, mindful of the treatment which their Palestinian brethren had received at the hands
of the Romans, and of their own sufferings, especially at Nisibis and Adiabene, during the four
years of Trajan's campaign, arose in rebellion, determined to expel the Romans from their country.
Trajan thereupon ordered the Mauritanian prince Lusius Quietus to proceed against the Jews, and
gave him strict orders to purge the provinces of them, his rigid obedience to this order winning for
the legate the governorship of Palestine (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iv. 2; idem, "Chronikon," ed.
Schoene, ii. 164; Orosius, vii. 12; Dion Cassius, lxviii. 32).
In the meantime, however, rebellion had again broken out in Judea; and it is highly probable that
the Palestinian Jews also rendered assistance to their oppressed brethren elsewhere, especially in
Egypt, this fact possibly furnishing an explanation of Trajan's expedition to Egypt (Esther R.
proem, § 3). The rabbinical legend gives the following reason for the revolution: The emperor's
wife (the governor's wife is probably meant) bore a child on the 9th of Ab, when the Jews were
lamenting, and it died on the Feast of Ḥanukkah, when the Jews illuminated their houses; and in
revenge for these fancied insults the wife urged her husband to punish the Jews (ib.). No such
legend, however, is needed to explain the Jewish rebellion against the Roman government, for
during the reign of Trajan the Christian descendants of David, who were relatives of Jesus, were
persecuted; and Schlatter rightly infers that the patriarchal family likewise died for its faith, since
it was supposed to be Davidic.
The Palestinian revolt appears to have been organized by two brothers, Pappus and Luliani, and
rabbinical sources expressly allude to Trajan's proceedings against the pair (Sifra, Emor, viii. 9,
and parallels; see also Kohut, "Aruch Completum," iv. 74), whom he is said to have sentenced to
death in Laodicea, although he afterward ordered them taken to Rome, where they were executed.
Here again the rabbinical sources confuse Trajan with his governor, Lusius Quietus, who was later
deposed and executed by Hadrian. The marvelous escape of Pappus and Luliani was celebrated by
a semifestival called "Trajan's Day," which fell, according to the Meg. Ta'an., on the 12th of Adar
(see Ratner in Sokolow," Sefer ha-Yobel," p. 507), although it is more probable that this day really
commemorated the success of the Jewish forces against the Roman army. Denarii of Trajan are
mentioned in the Talmud ('Ab. Zarah 52b); and it is also noteworthy that, according to the
inscriptions of this emperor, he constructed a road from the Syrian border to the Red Sea. The
unrest which marked the end of his reign was not allayed until his successor Hadrian became
emperor.
Bibliography:
• Grätz, Gesch. 3d ed., iv. 112-117;
• Schürer, Gesch. 3d ed., i. 661-668;
• Schlatter, Die Tage Trajans und Hadrians, p. 88, Gütersloh, 1897.

29
30
 Megillat Taanit as a Source for Jewish Chronology and History in
the Hellenistic and Roman Periods

Solomon Zeitlin writes:12

12 The Jewish Quarterly Review , Oct., 1919 237-290

31
32
33
34
35
 Signing Up for a COVID-19 Vaccine Trial

Sharon Galper Grossman and Shamai Grossman write:13

“Hi, Mom. I wanted to let you know that I won’t be around for the next few months. I am going
to a regulated medical facility where I will receive a vaccine, wait a few weeks for it to kick in,
and then receive an injection of a highly contagious, potentially lethal virus. I can’t leave the
building and you can’t visit me. Don’t worry. The doctors will monitor me for signs of infection.
Although there is no cure, they will give me the best treatment. I love you and am doing this for
you and dad – to keep you safe from this virus.”

This is not science fiction. Sam has joined the nearly 30,000 volunteers from over 100 countries
who have offered to participate in human challenge studies for a vaccine against COVID-19.[1] A
growing number of governments and their agencies recognize the value of such trials. In a
bipartisan letter, 36 congressmen asked the heads of the Federal Drug Administration and the
Department of Health and Human Services to consider implementing a COVID-19 human vaccine
challenge trial.[2] The World Health Organization supports such studies if conducted ethically.[3]

13 https://www.thelehrhaus.com/timely-thoughts/signing-up-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-trial/ Aug 2020

36
With over 13,000,000 cases of COVID-19 worldwide and 500,000 deaths, resurgence in areas that
had reduced their rate of infection, the possibility of a second wave, and no successful treatment,
there is a pressing need to develop an effective vaccine to prevent infection. Traditional vaccine
development involves three phases. Phase I tests vaccine safety in 15-30 patients; phase II
measures efficacy in 100-300 patients, without direct comparison to a control group; and phase
III, follows thousands of patients over an extensive period of time and compares the outcome of
the vaccinated with that of the unvaccinated. COVID-19 vaccine studies will require at least
30,000 participants to participate for many months. These traditional methods for testing and
development might not yield an effective vaccine for years. Accelerating the licensure of an
effective vaccine by even a month could save thousands of lives and prevent human suffering,
deeper financial loss, and further damage to the world economy.

Human challenge studies that involve the deliberate infection of healthy volunteers could
substantially reduce the time to licensure and might demonstrate safety and efficacy in as few as
100 volunteers. If applied to several potential COVID-19 vaccines, this approach could maximize
the efficacy of the vaccine ultimately selected for dissemination, help validate tests for COVID-
19 immunity, increase our understanding of the pathogenesis of disease from exposure to infection
and the duration of immunity conferred by vaccination, and the risks of transmission from infected
individuals, and evaluate the efficacy of drugs for pre- or post-exposure prophylaxis in high risk
populations.

This article seeks to determine how Halakhah views Sam’s participation in a COVID-19 human
vaccine challenge trial.

History of Human Vaccine Challenge Trials

In 1796, in an attempt to identify an effective vaccine against smallpox, Edward Jenner conducted
the first human challenge study by inoculating a healthy eight-year old with cowpox, a related but
less virulent virus, and subsequently exposing him to smallpox. Jenner confirmed that inoculation
had protected the child from infection. Ironically, his experiment, which would probably be
considered unethical today, gave birth to the field of virology, the discovery of vaccinations, and
the eradication of smallpox. Although the history of human challenge trials is complex and fraught
with examples of unethical conduct,[4] more recent trials, subject to rigorous ethical standards,
have substantially expedited and enhanced the efficacy and safety of vaccine development.
However, to minimize the risks to infected participants, researchers generally reserve such trials
for diseases with a known cure, such as cholera or malaria. No such cure exists for COVID-19,
rendering a human vaccine challenge trial even more dangerous for participants like Sam.

What exactly does this participation entail for Sam? In the preliminary stage, uninfected
volunteers enter a clinical isolation facility to determine the dose of virus required to cause
infection of equal severity to natural infection. Next, other uninfected volunteers, including Sam,
enter the facility and are randomly assigned either vaccine or placebo. After an interval, which
allows for vaccine response, both groups receive controlled exposure to the virus and intensive
monitoring of infection, symptoms, and vaccine effect. If any participant develops an infection, he
will receive outstanding medical care with priority for life-saving resources in a state-of-the-art

37
medical facility with a laboratory equipped to handle the virus, appropriate airborne-infection
isolation rooms, and access to an intensive care facility. Participants remain isolated in a secure
and comfortable setting until they are no longer considered infectious.

Ethicists debate the morality of participating in human vaccine challenge trials. Those who object
note that some volunteers will suffer serious complications or death, even if they are young,
healthy, and receive cutting-edge medical treatment. They fear that vaccination might increase the
severity of infection, a phenomenon associated with vaccine models for SARS. [5] In addition, the
trial might not yield an effective vaccine. In addition, Sam and his fellow volunteers cannot truly
provide informed consent since the dangers of the vaccine are unknown, as are the long-term risks
of COVID-19 infection, including the potential for cardiac and neurologic sequelae. Even after the
trial identifies an effective vaccine, it may not be generalizable to the elderly or to populations that
have the greatest need for vaccination but in which it was not initially tested. [6] Furthermore,
accelerating vaccine development might compromise academic rigor, leading to the release of a
harmful vaccine, which could increase the public’s distrust of vaccines and refusal of standard
vaccinations. Lastly, such trials could lead down a slippery slope authorizing subjects to participate
in more ethically questionable studies.

Those who argue that these trials are ethical claim that participants can provide informed consent,
especially since extensive media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the public’s
awareness of the dangers of infection. They point out that researchers can minimize the risks by
enlisting young, healthy volunteers (ages 20-45) who are at lowest risk of death from COVID-19,
from locations with a high baseline risk of infection (that is, they are likely to become infected
from their natural environment, so participation only minimally increases their risk of infection
and merely hastens what may be inevitable), and that the trial offers the best possible care to
participants should they become infected. In addition, they argue that the level of risk involved in
such studies is comparable to the risk associated with other altruistic acts that we deem ethical,
such as kidney donation, firefighters running into burning buildings, and emergency medical
personnel who volunteer to fight the pandemic. We allow individuals to choose dangerous
professions and to engage in harmful behaviors such as smoking or riding motorcycles. We ask
soldiers to go to war, notwithstanding its risk of injury or death.

A vaccine challenge trial that exposes a small group to the virus and yields information regarding
vaccine safety and efficacy more quickly than a traditional phase III study can reduce the number
of individuals harmed by a faulty vaccine and obtain such information more rapidly, allowing for
earlier trial closure. While participation exposes volunteers to significant risks, it also offers them
benefits — potential immunity to COVID-19 through vaccination or infection, possible immunity
from subsequent outbreaks of COVID-19, cutting-edge medical care if necessary with priority for
scarce medical resources, and reduced anxiety over infecting family and friends.

Undergoing Dangerous Medical Procedures in Halakhah

Halakhah’s approach to dangerous medical procedures begins with Avodah Zara 27b, which
permits a hayei sha’ah – a sick individual with a limited time to live – to seek the care of a pagan
doctor, because while we worry that a Jew-hating doctor might kill the Jewish patient, he might

38
also effect a long-term cure. However, if the sick individual is unlikely to die, he may not turn to
the pagan. The Gemara’s explanation as to why we permit the hayei sha’ah to risk his brief
remaining time alive is, “le-hayei sha’ah lo haishinan” – we are not concerned about a risk to a
short life because the pagan doctor might cure him.

The Gemara derives this principle from the dilemma of the four lepers in II Kings 7:3-8. Banished
from their city, which was struck by famine, they faced starvation. They saw a camp of Arameans
possessing food, and were confronted by the following dilemma. If they were to enter the camp,
the Arameans might kill them, yet they might feed them. Preferring possible immediate death from
capture to certain subsequent death from starvation, the lepers entered the camp. There they
discovered an abundance of food and survived.

Tosafot (s.v. le-hayei sha’ah lo haishinan) questions the principle “le-hayei sha’ah lo haishinan.”
Doesn’t Yoma 65a’s permission to move stones on Shabbat to search for a hayei sha’ah buried
underneath the rubble imply that we value even the briefest survival? Tosafot answers that in both
cases we act in the best interest of the patient, rejecting certain death for an uncertainty that might
prolong life. Thus, in Avodah Zarah, we disregard hayei sha’ah because otherwise the patient will
surely die. In Yoma, we desecrate Shabbat for the hayei sha’ah because if we do not remove the
stones, he will also certainly die. Based on Avodah Zara 27b and the story of the lepers, Shulhan
Arukh Yoreh De’ah 155:1 codifies the principal “le-hayei sha’ah lo haishinan,” permitting a hayei
sha’ah to incur the risk of death at the hands of a pagan doctor in the hope of a long-term cure.
Numerous modern poskim[7] rule that a hayei sha’ah may undergo a risky medical procedure if it
offers the chance of a long-term cure. Shevut Ya’akov 3:75 explains, “Since the patient will
certainly die, we push off the certainty of death and opt for the possibility of cure.”

One source, however, seems to prohibit the hayei sha’ah from undergoing dangerous medical
treatment. Sefer Hasidim 467 describes a special herb remedy with the potential to kill or cure
within days of use, accusing the women who prepared it of shortening the lives of their patients.
One might interpret his denunciation as a rejection of the principle “le-hayei sha’ah lo
haishinan.” Orhot Hayyim, Orah Hayyim 328:10 dismisses this interpretation, explaining
that Sefer Hasidim only prohibits the risky remedy because there is an alternative safe treatment.
He argues that in the absence of an effective alternative even Sefer Hasidim would accept the risk.
Applied to our case ,the absence of an effective cure for COVID-19 might justify engaging in a
risky process to find a cure.

Does the principle “le-hayei sha’ah lo haishinan” permit healthy volunteers like Sam to participate
in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial that injects half of the participants with a vaccine
of uncertain benefit, exposing them to a lethal virus? To answer this question, we must determine
if hayei sha’ah applies to healthy volunteers who do not face the risk of immediate death, the level
of medical risk one may incur to achieve hayei olam (long-term cure), and the level of benefit
required to justify the assumption of such risk. In addition, we must establish whether the
volunteers may endanger themselves, in the absence of any personal gain, purely for the benefit of
others, and whether this principle applies to experimental therapies where the benefit of treatment
is unclear. Finally, if Halakhah permits participation, is one obligated to volunteer?

39
Defining Hayei Sha’ah

The discussion permitting dangerous medical treatment assumed that the individual had the status
of hayei sha’ah – a terminal illness with a limited time to live. Can we interpret hayei sha’ah more
broadly, and can we apply this understanding to human vaccine challenge trials involving healthy
volunteers? Rishonim and early Aharonim do not define hayei sha’ah precisely. Their
interpretation of the term ranges from a life expectancy as short as one to two days to longer than
a year (see Table 1). Though these poskim debate the exact duration of life required to satisfy
the halakhic definition of hayei sha’ah, they view a hayei sha’ah as an individual with an illness
that compromises his life expectancy. At first glance, these poskim would not classify Sam, a
healthy young volunteer, as a hayei sha’ah.

However, Tiferet Yisrael Yoma, Boaz 8:3, expands the definition, permitting a healthy individual
to undergo smallpox vaccination, which causes death in one in 1,000 individuals, to attain long-
term immunity. He dismisses the small risk of immediate death from vaccination so as to prevent
future lethal infections and broadens the definition of hayei sha’ah to include situations where the
cause of death is not present, but is only a statistical possibility. He bases this ruling on Beit
Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which, citing the Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, obligates a
person to place himself in a possible danger to save his friend from a certain danger. So for
example, if someone sees his friend drowning in the sea, he must jump in to save him though he
risks drowning during his attempted rescue. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if a bystander is obligated
to incur possible risk to rescue his drowning friend from a possible danger, a healthy individual
may accept possible immediate peril to save himself from a possible future danger.

Rabbi J.D. Bleich applies Tiferet Yisrael’s definition of hayei sha’ah to healthy carriers of the
BRCA mutation who act to reduce their high risk of cancer by opting for prophylactic
surgery.[8] Though the cancer has not yet developed, they may incur the immediate risk of surgery
to increase their life expectancy.[9] Even if we consider a genetic predisposition or a statistical
probability a present danger, it is unlikely that unafflicted carriers of such a mutation will die
within twelve months. By permitting a healthy individual to assume a one in 1,000 risk of
immediate death to prevent a future lethal smallpox infection, Tiferet Yisrael suggests that
Halakhah recognizes the importance of disease prevention, equating it with treatments for active
life-threatening disease. His halakhic analysis and assessment might permit a healthy volunteer
such as Sam to participate in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial to achieve immunity from COVID-
19. However, such a trial involves substantial risk without proven benefits. In addition, because
Tiferet Yisrael bases his position on the Yerushalmi which obligates an individual to endanger
himself to save someone who faces certain danger, Tiferet Yisrael might even allow Sam to
participate in the absence of any personal benefit, for pure altruism to save humanity.

Defining a Permissible Level of Risk

Aharonim debate the exact level of risk the hayei sha’ah may incur. Ahiezer 2:16:6 cites Mishnat
Hakhamim to permit a dangerous treatment for a safek shakul – a risk of death less than or equal
to 50%. If the risk of death exceeds 50%, the hayei sha’ah may not receive the treatment. This is
also the opinion of Tzitz Eliezer 10:25:5:5. If the majority of physicians endorse treatment,

40
Ahiezer permits a risk greater than 50% and does not define the upper limit of permitted risk.
Because any COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial would receive the prior approval of an
overseeing body of physicians, Ahiezer might permit participation for a risk higher than 50%. Beit
David Yoreh De’ah II:340 permits a hayei sha’ah to receive a treatment that causes death in 999
out of 1,000 patients. In 1961, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De’ah 2:58, permitted
a treatment in which the odds were more than 50% that it would cause death. However, in 1972
(Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De’ah 3:36), he modified his position, permitting only a safek shakul. He
concludes that a hayei sha’ah who seeks medical treatment with a greater than 50% risk of death
may rely on the more lenient position of Ahiezer and receive the dangerous therapy.

How does Sam’s participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial compared to the risks that
these poskim cite? They address situations where the person is terminally ill and faces imminent
death, but do not define the level of risk a healthy individual may incur. However, Tiferet
Yisrael permits a healthy individual to undergo vaccination against smallpox with a risk of death
of one in 1,000. For all adults age 20-29 infected with COVID-19, including those with
comorbidities, virologists estimate a 1.1% risk of complications requiring hospitalization and
0.03% risk of death,[10] an approximation that might either overestimate or underestimate Sam’s
true risk.

Sam, who suffers no comorbidities, might be at the low end of the participation risk. Furthermore,
because Sam lives in an area with a large number of COVID-19 cases, he is already at high risk of
infection; participation only minimally increases this. Should he become infected, he will receive
state-of-the-art care, which might reduce his complications. In addition, if researchers identify an
effective treatment, that treatment would further diminish his participation risk. With appropriate
risk minimization (e.g., careful titration of viral dose, early diagnosis, and optimal medical care),
Sam might face little, if any, additional risk related to experimental infection. Alternatively, Sam’s
risk of death might be higher than estimated because the vaccine or the strain of virus injected
might increase the severity of infection or the incidence of lasting harm. In addition, because the
virus is so new and follow-up of those infected limited, the long-term risks of COVID-19 infection
are unknown and might be greater than anticipated. Even if Sam’s risk from participating is higher
than estimated, his danger of death is still well below the 50% threshold that the above poskim use
and the 0.1% risk that Tifferet Yisrael permits for healthy individuals undergoing smallpox
vaccination.

Definition of Hayei Olam – What Benefits Justify Risk?

The above discussion, which explored a hayei sha’ah’s acceptable level of risk with regard to
medical treatments, assumed that the goal of treatment is to achieve hayei olam, a long-term
cure. Poskim disagree about whether one may undergo a dangerous therapy for any other purpose,
such as prolonging life in the absence of a complete recovery or the relief of pain and
symptoms. Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De’ah 2:58 and 3:36 prohibits risky treatment that merely
prolongs life in the absence of complete recovery. Rav Bleich offers a different
perspective.[11] Quoting Ramban’s Torat ha-Adam,[12] which derives from the phrase, “le-hayei
sha’ah lo haishinan” the principle that “we are not concerned with possible [loss of] hayei sha’ah in
the face of more life (hayei tuva),” Rav Bleich interprets “hayei tuva” to mean more life, and

41
concludes that Ramban would permit dangerous medical treatment to achieve a longer period
of hayei sha’ah, even in the absence of a cure. Iggerot Moshe Yore De’ah II:36 prohibits
dangerous treatment for pain relief alone. Rav Yaakov Emden, Mor u-Kezi’ah 328, writes that
surgery for pain relief is not “hutar le-gamrei,” categorically permitted, suggesting that under
specific circumstances it might be allowed. Tzitz Eliezer 13:87 permits morphine for a dying
patient, although morphine might hasten his death, because nothing torments man more than
intractable pain. Thus, Tzitz Eliezer would argue, a hayei sha’ah may undergo dangerous
treatment not just to achieve hayei olam but also to achieve hayei tuva, longer life or pain relief.

What is the benefit to Sam of participating in the human vaccine challenge trial? Will participation
give him hayei olam, hayei tuva, or some other non-life prolonging benefit? First, vaccination
itself or infection with or without vaccination might yield hayei olam — a long-term cure and
permanent immunity to COVID-19, akin to Tiferet Yisrael’s smallpox vaccine. However, it is
possible that the vaccine or infection will only provide temporary immunity. Here, participation
will not achieve hayei olam, but only hayei tuva, but revaccination to boost his immunity could
yield hayei olam. Second, because Sam lives in a high-infection zone, he faces a real risk of
becoming infected even if he does not participate. Participation guarantees Sam priority in the
allocation of medical resources and the best medical care should he become infected. By
participating, Sam decreases his risk of complications and death from infection. Better care could
improve his medical outcome and increase his chances of surviving COVID-19, thus
facilitating hayei olam. Furthermore, if he develops immunity, he can no longer infect his family.
The possibility of achieving long-term or short-term immunity to COVID-19, better treatment if
infected, and relieving anxiety over infecting others are direct benefits to Sam for participating in
the trial.

However, it is possible that participation will provide no benefit, direct or indirect, to Sam. Sam’s
ultimate motivation for participation, like that of the thousands of volunteers who have come
forward to participate in these trials, is altruism, helping to discover an effective vaccine that will
save millions of lives. May one undergo a dangerous treatment in order to save others?

Incurring Risk to Save Others

Citing Talmud Yerushalmi Terumot, chapter eight, Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426 obligates one
to place himself in a possible danger to save the life of someone facing certain danger. In Shulhan
Arukh, Rav Yosef Karo and Rama omit this requirement. Sema Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 explains
that Shulhan Arukh and Rama follow Rambam, Rif, Rosh, and Tur, who also omit this
obligation. Pithei Teshuvah Hoshen Mishpat 426:2 suggests that they omitted this obligation
because it contradicts Talmud Bavli (Niddah 61a and Sanhedrin 73a) and Jewish law typically
follows Talmud Bavli. Radbaz 3:627 (53) was asked if a foreign government demands that a Jew
undergo removal of a limb, a procedure presumed not to endanger his life, to save the life of
another Jew, may one do so. He answers that one who consents acts with midat hasidut, a degree
of piety, but if amputation will endanger his life, he is a hasid shoteh, acting illogically by violating
the commandment va-hai bahem (which Sanhedrin 74a understands to mean that mitzvot are to
live by and not die by). Similarly, in in Radbaz 5 Lilshonot ha-Rambam 1:582 (218), he addresses
whether one is obligated to save the life of a fellow Jew, he explains that if the rescuer faces a safek

42
mukhra – definite doubt (such as a 50% chance of harm to the rescuer and a 50% chance of safely
saving the individual)- he has no obligation to act. But if the odds are greater that he will save his
friend without endangering himself, failure to rescue transgresses lo ta’amod al dam rei’ekha.

Tiferet Yisrael bases his teshuvah permitting a healthy volunteer to undergo smallpox vaccination
on Talmud Yerushalmi and Beit Yosef Hoshen Mishpat 426, which obligate a person to place
himself in danger to save a drowning friend. Tiferet Yisrael reasons that if one may endanger
himself to rescue his friend from danger, he may certainly assume risk of vaccination to save
himself and achieve long-term immunity. In fact, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De’ah 2:174:4 permits one
to accept a possible danger if it will save someone else from a definite danger. Tzitz Eliezer 13:101
rules that one may participate in experimental therapy and donate blood to benefit others if
physicians determine that participation is risk-free. We consider such participation a mitzvah. In
this situation, however, physicians cannot determine the risk of Sam’s participating in the human
vaccine trial and cannot claim that the trial is without risk.

In Yehaveh Da’at 3:84, Rav Ovadia Yosef prohibits treatment with a risk greater than 50% based
on Radbaz’s classification of a rescuer who endangers himself for a safek shakul as a hasid shoteh.
Rav Ovadia Yosef states that the majority of Aharonim, including Eliyah Rabba 328:8, Netziv ha-
Emek She’eilah Re’eh 147:4, Aruh Ha-shulkhan 426, Mishpat Kohen 143-2, Heikhal
Yitzhak Orah Hayyim 3, and Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De’ah 1:145, support this position. However,
he permits kidney donation and even considers it a mitzvah, because the risk to the donor is low;
according to the physicians with whom he consulted, 99% of donors recover fully from the
operation. Interestingly, like Rav Ovadia Yosef, ethicists point to kidney donation as a model for
determining the level of risk one may accept to benefit others [13],[14] and consider the risk of death
from participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine trial equivalent to the risk of death from kidney
donation.[15] Because the risk of death from participating in this trial is significantly less than 50%
and is comparable to the risk of kidney donation, Halakhah would seem to permit Sam’s altruistic
enrollment to save others from certain death from the virus. In fact, Sam’s participation, which has
the potential to save not just one life, like a kidney donor, but millions, is not only permitted but
meritorious. One might even argue that Sam is obligated to participate based on lo ta’amod al dam
rei’ekha.

Rav Asher Weiss in Minhat Asher 3:122 cites Ta’anit 18b as proof that an individual may
endanger himself to save the community, and in doing so performs a great mitzvah. According to
Rashi, Turyanus, a Roman official, accused the Jews of murdering the emperor’s daughter. He
threatened mass execution unless the guilty party confessed. To save the community, Lilianus and
Pappus, falsely do so. Turyanos executes them and spares the community. Rav Weiss concludes
that an individual who gives his life to save the community has a direct path to the Garden of Eden.
He states that when a nation is at war, there are unique rules of pikuah nefesh, the obligation to
save a life. To win, the nation requires the self-sacrifice of not only its soldiers, but all those who
fill essential, life-saving roles, such as police officers, fire fighters, security guards, and
physicians. In the midst of a pandemic that has infected 13,000,000 and led to the death of 500,000
worldwide, one may reasonably conclude that we are at war with COVID-19, and that Sam and
the other volunteers for a human vaccine challenge trial are voluntary conscripts.

43
Though Halakhah permits one to undergo risky treatment to achieve a long-term cure, poskim,
including Tiferet Yisrael Yoma 8:3, do not obligate participation. If the chance that the treatment
will succeed is greater than 50%, based on Iggerot Moshe in Yore De’ah 3:36 and Hoshen Mishpat
2:74:5, Rav Bleich explains that assuming risk for a long-term cure is permitted but not obligatory,
because we trust a person to do what is reasonable to safeguard his body from danger. For those
who are risk averse, undertaking a dangerous treatment or participating in a human vaccine trial
would be unreasonable, while for the less conservative, such as Sam, the risk is acceptable.

Experimental Therapy in Halakhah

The discussion about dangerous medical treatment applies to therapies with known medical
benefits. How does Halakhah approach risks incurred for experimental therapy with no proven
benefit? Ttitz Eliezer 13:101 limits participation in experimental treatment to trials that are risk-
free. Rav Moshe Dov Welner in ha-Torah ve-haMedinah, VII-VIII (5716-5717), 314, prohibits
participation in clinical trials that lack scientific basis. He addresses a situation where the physician
has no idea how to treat a disease and decides to experiment on a dying patient because the patient
will die anyway. He calls such a physician a terrorist. The scientific reality surrounding human
vaccine trials is vastly different than this extreme example. While the exact benefits of
participation – such as whether the vaccine confers immunity and whether it will eradicate
COVID-19 – are unknown, these trials employ vaccines that have already shown promise in
preliminary trials and undergone extensive review by governmental and international agencies that
have approved their scientific merit as potential vaccines. Such trials would not qualify as acts of
desperation, implemented because the patient is dying anyway.

Minhat Shlomo 2:82:12 permits participation in medical research, classifying the battle against
disease as a milhemet mitzvah, a necessary war. Today we do not have a king or beit din to declare
a milhemet mitzvah against disease and obligate the healthy to take dangerous medicines to help
find a cure. He writes that because recognized experts, our contemporary equivalent of a beit din or
king, take great care to execute these studies, one may participate. He explains that participation
qualifies as holeh lefanenu, the presence of an actual sick person before us, which is considered a
fundamental halakhic requirement for defining a situation as pikuah nefesh. In Noda be-Yehuda
Yoreh De’ah 280, Rav Yehezkel Landau prohibited autopsies because they are for the benefit of
future patients, not those who appear before us now, and thus fail to meet a strict definition of holeh
lefanenu.[16] Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains that those autopsies were performed
exclusively to increase the physician’s knowledge, so are not comparable to experimental therapy.
Rav Auerbach believes that contemporary medical research qualifies as holeh lefanenu because
those sick with these diseases are before us, and the treatments to be tested are before us. He
considers participation in clinical trials safek hatzalat nefashot – possibly life-saving – and not
merely an academic exercise to increase scientific knowledge.

Human Vaccine Challenge Trials

Recently, Rav Asher Weiss[17] directly addressed the permissibility of participating in such trials.
Reiterating his position in Minhat Asher 3:122 that one may endanger oneself to perform an
essential communal role such as serving as a police officer, rescue worker, or even judge who risks

44
death threats, he permits young, healthy individuals to participate in COVID-19 human vaccine
challenge trials in controlled environments because the risk of complications or death is low,
especially for those who are young and lack comorbidities, and the trial can potentially save
thousands of lives. He notes the concerns of Noda be-Yehuda[18] and Hatam Sofer,[19] who
prohibited autopsies because such procedures failed to satisfy their halakhic definition of holeh
lefanenu. Rav Weiss explains that even if we do not define participation as pikuah nefesh,
overriding biblical and rabbinic prohibitions, it is a mitzvah since it will save millions of lives.
This social good permits Sam to assume the small risk of participation. Furthermore, one cannot
extrapolate from the autopsies of the Noda be-Yehuda to contemporary scientific reality. It is
highly unlikely that autopsies performed two hundred years ago affected medical care. He writes,
“verifying the efficacy of a vaccine would not be categorized as a benefit in the distant future, but
rather as a great mitzvah that is, in fact, halakhically considered to be possibly life-saving.” He
rejects Rav Auerbach’s classification of medical research as milhemet mitzvah because this
designation obligates participation in medical research, and Rav Weiss believes that participation
is not obligatory. Only wars fought against enemy armies qualify as milhamot mitzvah, not public
dangers such as wild animals and diseases, to which only the laws of pikuach nefesh apply.

Conclusion

The halakhic decisions cited above, including perhaps even Radbaz, would seem to permit Sam’s
participation in a COVID-19 human vaccine challenge trial, because a healthy individual may
incur a small risk of death, comparable to the risk permitted for other acts of altruism such as
kidney donation to achieve long-term immunity. In addition, the potential benefit to society is
immeasurable, preventing the death and suffering of millions by halting the spread of this
pandemic and ending the physical, psychological, and economic devastation of prolonged social
distancing.

Table 1

Definition of hayei sha’ah According to Rishonim and Aharonim:

What is the life expectancy of a hayei sha’ah?

[1] 1 Day Sooner – sign-up website for volunteers for COVID-19 Human Challenge Trials, https://1daysooner.org/.

45
[2]Vaccine Letter to HHS and FDA, March 20,
2020, https://foster.house.gov/sites/foster.house.gov/files/2020.04.20_Ltr%20to%20HHS%20%20FDA%20on%20Rapid%20Vac
cine%20Deployment%20for%20COVID-19%20-%20Signed.pdf.

World Health Organization, “Key Criteria for the Ethical Acceptability of COVID-19 Human Challenge Studies,” May 6,
[3]

2020, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/331976/WHO-2019-nCoV-Ethics_criteria-2020.1-eng.pdf?ua=1

Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, “Ethically Impossible: Research in Guatemala from 1946 – 1948,”
[4]

Washington, D.C. (September,

2011), https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/sites/default/files/Ethically%20Impossible%20(with%20linked%20historica
l%20documents)%202.7.13.pdf.

Wan Y, Shang J, Sun S, et al., “Molecular Mechanism for Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Coronavirus Entry,” J
[5]

Virol. 2020; 94:e02015-19.

[6] Corey, L. et al., “A Strategic Approach to COVID-19 Vaccine R&D,” Science (May 29, 2020): 948-950.

Shvut Yaakov 3:75, Pithei Teshuvah Yoreh De’ah 339:1, Gilyon Maharsha Yoreh De’ah 155:1, Binat Adam 73, 93, Binyan
[7]

Tziyyon 111, Tiferet Yisrael Boaz, Yoma 8:3, Ahiezer 2:16:6, Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De’ah 2:58 and 3:36, and Tzitz Eliezer
4:13, all permit a hayei sha’ah to undergo risky medical treatment for cure.

Bleich, J.D., “Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures,” Tradition, 37, no.3 (2003):
[8]

76-100, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23262430 .

Bleich, J.D. “Genetic Screening: Survey of Recent Halachic Periodical Literature,” Tradition, 34, no.1 (2000): 63–
[9]

87, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23261641?seq=1 .

Verity, R. et al, “Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis,” Lancet Infect. Dis. March
[10]

30, 2020, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext .

[11] Bleich, J.D., “Survey of Recent Halakhic Periodical Literature: Hazardous Medical Procedures,” Tradition, 37, no. 3 (2003):
94.

[12] Kol Kitvei ha-Ramban, II, 38.

[13] Miller, G., Joffe, S., “Limits to Research Risks,” J. Med. Ethics 35, 445 (2009).

Resnik, D., “Limits on Risks for Healthy Volunteers in Biomedical Research,” Theor. Med. Bioeth. 33, no. 2 (April,
[14]

2012): 137.

Verity, R. et al, “Estimates of the Severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Model-based Analysis,” Lancet Infect. Dis. March
[15]

30, 2020, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext.

For a more detailed discussion of the definition of holeh lefanenu in Covid-19, see our earlier Lehrhaus
[16]

essay, https://www.thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/sharpening-the-definition-of-holeh-lefanenu-the-diamond-princess-and-the-
limits-of-quarantine/.

[17]
Rav Asher Weiss, “Experimental Treatments for Coronavirus,” Mosaica Press (2020): 5-7.

[18] Noda be-Yehuda Yoreh De’ah, 210.

46
[19] Hatam Sofer Yoreh De’ah, 336.

[20] Rashi Avodah Zara 27b s.v. hayei sha’ah.

Ahiezer 2:16:6 explains that there is no difference between one to two day survival and six months. He classifies a patient
[21]

with six months to live as hayei sha’ah, and permits him to undergo a dangerous operation in hope of a cure. It is possible that
had he been asked about the status of someone with more than six months to live, he might have extended the definition of hayei
sha’ah to include those with longer anticipated survivals.

[22]
Iggerot Moshe Yoreh De’ah, 3:36.

[23]In Tradition, 2003, Rav J.D. Bleich argues that Hokhmat Shlomoh’s definition of one year is not rigid. He presents the
example of a patient diagnosed with life-threatening leukemia and a prognosis of 13 months, who is offered a risky bone marrow
transplant for cure. If he waits one month and one day for a transplant so that he now has less than one year to live and
meets Hokhmat Shlomoh’s definition of hayei sha’ah, this delay will cause a deterioration of his medical condition, rendering
him a much poorer candidate for the transplant, with a higher likelihood of failure than if he had undergone treatment with a life
expectancy of 13 months. Rav Bleich concludes that delaying a life-saving though risky therapy until the individual satisfies the
strict cutoff of ha yei sh’ah is counterintuitive.

[24] Gilyon Maharsha 155:1 describes it as someone who lives “zeman mah” – a short period of time of unspecified duration.

R. Shlomo Kluger, Hokhmat Shlomoh, Yoreh De’ah 155:1, derives the halakhic status of hayei sha’ah from a tereifah – a
[25]

person or animal suffering a mortal wound or anomaly with less than twelve months to live, and limits hayei sha’ah to a life
expectancy of less than a year.

Divrei Yatziv Yoreh De’ah 219 rejects the definition of a hayei sha’ah as a tereifah, instead favoring the criteria of one who
[26]

suffers from a terminal disease that will ultimately lead to death, even if death will occur after 12 months.

Shevut Yaakov 3:75 addresses a situation where the individual is only expected to live one to two days. It is possible that had
[27]

he been asked about the status of someone with more than six months to live, he might have broadened the definition of hayei
sha’ah to include those with longer anticipated survivals.

[28] Mishpat Kohen, 144:3.

47
 Memorial for 8 fallen soldiers who fell on the Yom Kippur war not far from
Tell Saki in the eastern Golan Heights

Stopping on the road through the Valley of Tears

The debt owed to the young soldiers who gave their lives to defend Jewish life in
the land of Israel is both physical and spiritual

Elchanan Poupko writes:14

Driving up route 98 on the eastern tip of Israel’s Golan Heights is one of the most beautiful and
relaxing rides one can take. The cows grazing peacefully from the sun-dried hay on the side of the
road, the smell of the volcanic rocks that make up the high and mighty Golan, and the endless
beautiful view allowing you to see far as possible and see nature in its purest form. Despite the

14 https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/stopping-on-the-road-through-the-valley-of-tears/

48
beauty of the drive, I find myself compelled to pull over again and again on the side of the road
with tears in my eyes. The reason for this compulsion? The memorial monuments that fill the side
of the road, disrupting the peaceful beauty of the Golan, as the lives of the beautiful young soldiers
were disrupted by the Yom Kippur War, never to recover.

The first monument that caught my attention was Tel Saki, an army base and lookout into Syria
captured by the Syrians during the Yom Kippur war. I pull over in the parking lot and climb to the
top of the base. I see tunnels through which the soldiers walked, the lookout post, and the dirt roads
from Syria. I can imagine the 20-year-old boys – kids – fighting off a vast Syrian army beginning
on Yom Kippur 1973 and the days that followed. Thirty-two of them never came back. The
haunting memorial on-site includes cutouts of soldiers in full gear, holding their guns, remaining
in that position – and age – forever.

“My friends who did not return from the mound”, memorial with the pictures
and names of the soldiers who fell in Tel Saki during the Yom Kippur war.

After looking around, reading the names and staring at the terrifyingly young faces on the
memorial monument, I resume my journey, get in the car and continue heading north. As I begin

49
picking up speed, I suddenly notice another – much smaller – memorial on the side of the road.
This one is a simple rock bearing the names of eight soldiers who died there, with the skeleton of
a heavy military vehicle, a silent testimony to the heavy fighting of the day. I recite a chapter of
Psalms and a Yizkor memorial prayer for those soldiers, get back in the car and continue driving.

Memorial to 8 soldiers along road 98 in the easter Golan Heights

Once again, I hardly pick up speed and see a rock stood up with an Israeli flag next to it. I pull
over and see this carries one name – Yitzchak Berashi. I later learn he was a tank commander and
was just 31 when he died fighting to stop the Soviet-armed Syrian army from coming into Israel.
Once again, I say a prayer, get back into the car and continue driving.

50
 Memorial for Yitzchak Barashi, tank commander who lost his life defending
Israel during the Yom Kippur war

As I drive through the now twisty road, inching my way north, I notice a group of cannons painted
black – pointed up – yes, another memorial. As if caught by a spell, I pull over once again. This
memorial is in memory of the Barak unit, 79 of whom died within less than a mile, fighting off the
Syrian army. Once again, I say a memorial prayer. The whisper of the wind and weeds moving in
unison highlight the quiet around me. No cars. No people. Just me and the memory of the fallen. I
can imagine the young soldiers thrust out of their Yom Kippur prayers into the cruelty of war. I
can imagine the horror in their eyes as they see the endless columns of Syrian Soviet tanks creeping
towards them – on their way to crush the rest of Israel.

These stories gained broader recognition with the filming of Valley of Tears, memorializing the
struggle, pain, and heroism in the fateful days of the Yom Kippur War, focusing on the story of
one base in the northern Golan (Chermonit).

51
Memorial for 79 members of the Barak unit who died within less than a mile,
fighting off the Syrian army

Wondering why I felt so compelled to pay tribute to each and every one of these memorials, I was
reminded of the story about the young yeshiva student who told his Rabbi – Rabbi Shlomo Zalman
Aurbach – he wanted to travel away from his Yeshiva in Jerusalem up to northern Israel to pray
on the graves of the great rabbis buried in northern Israel. Rabbi Aurbach, an ultra-Orthodox rabbi,
famously told his student: “why do you need to go all the way up north to pray on the graves of
righteous rabbis when you can simply go to Mount Herzl in Jerusalem where you can pray next to
the graves of righteous fallen soldiers?!” The rabbi went on to share that when he feels in need of
his prayers to be heard with urgency, he goes to Mount Herzl and prays at the side of the grave of
fallen soldiers as he believes God will listen to his prayers in merit of their righteousness. Rabbi
Auerbach believed that even though many of the fallen soldiers came from secular homes and did
not study Torah and keep the mitzvot to the extent the great rabbis of yore did, yet in his eyes,
there was something more righteous about those soldiers.

I was reminded of the rabbis and how they had spoken about those who sacrifice their life, for the
sake of Jewish life – in the land of Israel. The Midrash says about the verse in the Ten

52
Commandments, which states about God “and [I] perform loving-kindness to thousands [of
generations], to those who love Me and to those who keep My commandments.”

The Midrash, cited by Rabbi Moses Nachmanides (Ibid, translation by Sefaria), states: “Rabbi
Nathan says that the verse, of them that love Me and keep My commandments refers to those who
dwell in the Land of Israel and give their lives for the commandments. The reference is obviously
to the persecutions by the Roman emperor Hadrian (117-138 CE), when Jews in the Land of Israel
were forbidden from the practice of Judaism. Their determination to remain in the Land of Israel
and practice their faith instead of emigrating to more peaceful lands such as Babylon was at those
times constituted as a special manifestation of their love of G-d. ‘Why are you being led out to be
executed?’ ‘Because I have circumcised my son.’ ‘Why are you being led out to be burned?’
‘Because I read the Torah.’ ‘Why are you being led out to be hanged?’ ‘Because I ate the
unleavened bread.’ ‘Why are you being lashed with the whip?’ ‘Because I took the lulav.”
The Midrash recognizes a superior spiritual level – unattainable by others – for those who sacrifice
for the sake of something greater than themselves. Those who sacrifice – some even sacrificing
their own life – are recognized on a far higher spiritual level than others. American president
Calvin Coolidge once said: “Heroism is not only in the man but in the occasion.” Often it is the
occasion that makes us who we are, rather than us making the occasion.

Young soldiers who have given their lives to defend Jewish life in the land of Israel are the axis
holding up the three sacred aspects of who we are as a people: the land of Israel, the people of
Israel, and the Torah of Israel.

While thousands of years have passed, the circumstance has remained in place. The story of the
many soldiers who gave their lives defending the people of Israel in the land of Israel evokes the
Talmudical story of Pappus and Lulyanus (see Taanit 18b). The story took place in the city of Lod
during the first century. Someone had killed a Roman noble’s daughter, and he decided that unless

53
he found the perpetrator of this murder, he would kill the entire city of Lod. The people of the
town were terrified.
No one knew who committed this horrendous crime, and the whole city was headed towards
annihilation. Suddenly, two brothers named Pappus and Lulyanus got up and – despite not having
committed the crime – decided they would turn themselves in to the Romans and admit to the
crime they had not committed so as to save the entire city. No great miracle or happy end took
place. Pappus and Lulyanus were executed by the Romans, though they did save the entire city of
Lod. The rabbis declared “Harugei Malchut En Lemalah Mehem – there is no one with a higher
place in Heaven than these two brothers.” Having made the ultimate sacrifice – giving their very
own life – posthumously elevated their souls higher than anyone else.

Destroyed armed jeep and tank in Tel Saki, testimony to the battle of 1973

Speaking on August 20th, 1940, Prime Minister Winston Churchill said with regard to members
of the Royal Air Force, “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so
few.” So much owed by so many to so few is also true of Pappus and Lulyanus and the Israeli
soldiers whose lives were taken from them as they heroically defended the land and the people of
Israel. The debt owed to those soldiers is both physical and spiritual. They are owed so much, yet

54
having given away their very soul for the sake of others, their soul rises to a high level like no one
else.

Writing in a very different context, the great Moses Maimonides shared the exact same idea.
Writing to the Jews of Spain and Morocco in the year 1165 as they were facing religious
persecution and forced conversion, Maimonides reflected on the tragic cases in which Jews were
killed for no reason other than being Jewish. In this letter known as Iggeret Hashmad (Letter of
Apostasy) or Maamar Kiddush Hashem (Essay on Sanctifying God’s Name), Maimonides writes:
“and a person who merits by God to ascend to this high virtue, that is to say, they are killed
sanctifying God’s name (i.e., killed just because they are Jewish), even if their sins are numerous
like those of [the wicked] Yerova’am son of Nebat, he has a share in the world to come, as it is
said, “Harugei Malchut En Lemalah Mehem – there is no one with a higher place in Heaven than
these two brothers.”
While Judaism sanctifies life, strictly forbids voluntary martyrdom, and asks us to do everything
we can to save lives, it also recognizes those who have given – in the language of Abraham
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address – “the last full measure of devotion.” This is why I felt compelled
to stop at each and every memorial on that narrow road in the Golan Heights, in the heat of the
Israeli summer. I could not just drive on physically, nor can any of us continue to drive on
metaphorically, and it is Yom Hazikaron gives us exactly that opportunity – to stop and recognize
those who have altruistically given up everything.

And how did my trip up the road continue? I continued my drive north to the bottom of the beautiful
mount Bental, overlooking Qunaitra, Syria. Looking at the border, I can see the fence between
Israel and Syria and the little homes and fields of Syrians across the border. Right in the middle of
the border, I saw the hospital where my friend Lt. Col. Eyal Dror helped treat and feed more than
200,000 Syrians during the brutal Syrian civil war in the IDF’s Operation Good Neighbor. I could
not help thinking of the fact that Lt. Col. Eyal Dror’s uncle was killed and father was injured in
the Yom Kippur war. I thought if only the Syrian soldiers attacking Israel during the Yom Kippur

55
would have known that their own family members would be rescued and treated by family
members of the same soldiers they were attacking – a thought I later shared with Israel’s
Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon.

Israeli hospital and humanitarian help center sitting on the border between
Israel and Syria overlooking the town of Qunaitra, Syria
Yom Hazikaron is the time we all pull over, no matter how fast our drive, and remember those
who selflessly sacrificed everything for the land and the people of Israel. Those who ran into
merciless enemy fire, those who charged towards thundering tank fire, and those who were
ambushed just because they wanted to live as Jews in the land of Israel. We take this day to show
the fallen just a little of the recognition and respect they deserve. It is the least we can do for those
soldiers whose lives froze forever on Yom Kippur afternoon 1973 in the Valley of Tears, or for
any other soldier and terror victim who fell for the sanctity of the land and the people. We also
stand with too many parents whose hearts are bleeding the words of Jeremiah “My dearest son
Ephraim, a child whom I delight, For whenever I speak of him, I still remember him: therefore
my heart yearns for him” (Jeremiah 38)

56