Chapter Four - Part 3: Placing Ourselves in Danger

If he does not have to. The translation here follows the explanation of Pat Lechem, who explains these words to mean that there are certain situations, such as when a person is under threat from an animal, in which he is forced to fight them in order to protect himself. (Cf. Tov Halevanon. )

You shall not test the L-rd, your G‑d, as you tested Him in Massah. This verse teaches that we are not permitted to rely on miracles; it is considered testing G‑d, so to speak. For if G‑d does not perform a miracle on the person’s behalf, people may conclude that G‑d is unable to do so ( Pat Lechem ).

The author will now elaborate on the possibility of the person’s passing away:

Despite the fact that his death and the manner in which he died were decreed by G‑d and done with His approval. Everything that happens is from G‑d, because it is G‑d Who brings the world and all that transpires into existence at every moment. And if He does not will it, then He will not bring it into existence. This leads to the obvious conclusion that something bad that happens to a person is what G‑d wanted to happen to that person. Even if the person is being wronged by someone who has free choice, and that other person will be punished for choosing to do bad, it does not mitigate the fact that, regarding the person who is being harmed, it was already decreed in heaven that he be harmed. G‑d has His many agents through which to harm, and He is not dependent on the person who by his own freedom of choice decided to harm.

This is also why we are taught that anger is like idolatry ( Zohar I 27b; III 179a; Rambam Hilchot Dei’ot 2:3 in the name of the “earliest sages”), because anger is a lack of awareness that what is happening is by Divine plan, and anger toward another is not the appropriate response ( Tov Halevanon ; Tanya, Iggeret Hakodesh Epistle 25. Cf. Likkutei Sichot, vol. 30, p. 297).

A person who kills himself is also a murderer. He is responsible for his death, despite the fact that it was predetermined by G‑d that he would die.

The author now goes a step further by saying that suicide is actually worse than murder for a number of reasons. First, the closer the victim of the killing is to the killer, the worse the crime:

A person naturally has greater compassion for his own brother or close family member than for a stranger. Therefore, the sin of killing one of them is more severe. There is no closer person to a person than himself. It follows that suicide is considered a more severe sin than regular murder.

An additional reason why suicide is considered such a severe sin:

For pursuing their brother with a sword, and they destroyed their mercy. The commentaries explain that this verse refers to the Romans, who pursued the Jews with the intent to kill them during the period leading up to the destruction of the Second Temple. The Romans were descendants of Esau, the brother of Jacob, and the verse describes how they destroyed their mercy ( Metzudat David; Abarbenel ).

He is analogous to a servant, etc. With this example, the author will demonstrate why a person cannot simply say that his body is his own and he can do what he wishes with it ( Marpei Lanefesh ).

Rambam writes: Neither the death penalty nor lashes may be adjudicated on account of a person’s admitted guilt, for perhaps he has lost his senses or is suicidal and wants to end his life ( Hilchot Sanhedrin 18:6).

Radbaz explains that a possible reason for this prohibition is that man’s life is not his own asset; it is G‑d’s, as the verse states (Ezekiel 18:4), The lives are mine, and a person’s admission (of guilt) cannot have a consequence on someone else’s property.

This requires additional explanation: Everything, even material possessions, belongs to G‑d, and yet we find that a person’s admission regarding material possessions have consequence. Why then would his life be any different?

The difference is in the way that G‑d gives over the “object” to man. When it comes to material wealth, for example, G‑d remains the principal owner, but when giving it to man, He gives it in a manner that man becomes “owner” over it, in a sense that he becomes the decision maker. He can do with it as he sees fit. (All he has is a prohibition against destroying it in vain.) When it comes to our bodies and lives, we do not become “owners”; we are simply “guardians.” G‑d entrusts us with His belonging and tells us to guard it. And a guardian cannot ruin what has been deposited in his care. (It is not only a prohibition, it is a matter of legality. He has no right to hurt himself.)

Why this distinction? Because life and wealth in general have this distinction.

When it comes to life, it is always clear to man that his life is dependent on G‑d and given over to Him. Man recites daily in prayer, “The soul that You gave me,” and he is aware of the constant need to serve G‑d through Torah and mitzvot. This need is not only reflective of man’s soul, but also of his body. Not only because his body becomes a vessel for his soul, but in the words of the Zohar, “his body is sacred” (III 70b). Since this is the nature of “life,” G‑d’s sole ownership of it predominates, and the person loses all freedom to “decide” what he wants to do with “his” body.

Material property, on the other hand, does not “display” any G‑dliness and contains no recognizable “connection.” It is only that it belongs to G‑d and we need to utilize it for G‑dliness. Thus, the manner in which this ownership was passed on to man was that he becomes “partial owner,” and he has the right (within Torah guidelines) to do as he sees fit ( Likkutei Sichot, vol. 34, p. 106 ff. ).

Instructed him. G‑d does not merely order man to fulfill his mission. Rather, G‑d gives each person the strength needed to fulfill his mission. In the words of the Midrash: “G‑d only asks of man what he is capable of” ( Bamidbar Rabbah 12:3).

In other words, a human taskmaster who is reasonable would never impose work that the person he is tasking with it is incapable of fulfilling. Now, when we are speaking of G‑d, Who created man and gave him his abilities, He would surely create him with the tools necessary to accomplish his mission. And G‑d, the King of kings, the essence of good, will never demand the impossible. It is only the evil inclination that comes and convinces man that he is incapable of fulfilling his mission. Man must recognize that this is surely not the case ( Likkutei Sichot, vol . 13, p. 40; vol. 8, p. 91-2).

A proof is cited that a person should not place himself in danger, and that this does not reflect a lack of bitachon:

Forsakes the service of G‑d, rebelling against Him. The verse states (Psalms 139:16), Days are designed. The inner meaning of this verse is that each person is designed with a specific amount of days to live, and that his allotted time is the precise amount of time—no more, no less—necessary to accomplish his mission. The person must ensure that not one moment goes to waste.

On the verse Abraham was old, coming in days (Genesis 24:1), the Zohar (I 129a) comments that coming in days means that Abraham “entered the supernal days”—referring to the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvot on each day. In other words, it was not just that Abraham fulfilled G‑d’s will; he made sure to fulfill a commandment on each and every day.

The obvious question is, what is the significance of days? Fulfilling G‑d’s will is important! What difference would it make if a person performed two commandments in one day and none on the next?

The answer in short is that G‑d has a plan for each person and day. And when a person is allotted time, the time itself is valuable. We must reveal G‑d in the time itself.

This is also the explanation of the Baal Shem Tov’s teaching that man should ensure that “no day goes by without fulfilling a Torah commandment” (beginning of Tzavaat Harivash ). Each commandment and each day are different opportunities for man to attain “garments” for his soul. This life is man’s time to accomplish ( Likkutei Sichot, vol. 16, p. 273; Torah Or Mishpatim 79b-c; Sefer Hamaamarim Melukat, vol. 1, p. 289 ff. ).

After King Saul failed to follow the directives of Samuel the Prophet to destroy the Amalekites, G‑d instructed Samuel to go to the house of Jesse and anoint one of his children (David) as king. However, Samuel was afraid that if Saul found out that Samuel was replacing him, Saul might kill him.

Although Samuel was explicitly instructed by G‑d to appoint a new king, his concern regarding the threat was not considered a lack of bitachon:

I have come to offer sacrifices to the L-rd. Meaning that G‑d agreed with Samuel and told him to be inconspicuous ( Pat Lechem ).

G‑d did not respond to Samuel’s concern by saying the concern was baseless and Samuel should trust that G‑d would take care of him since everything is in His hands. Instead, G‑d gave him advice on how to go about it in a manner that would not involve danger.

There are two reasons why in Samuel’s case it arguably would have been appropriate to place his life in danger. First, Samuel was righteous and deserving of G‑d’s miracles. Furthermore, G‑d had explicitly instructed Samuel to anoint the new king despite the inherent danger.

If even in such a case, Samuel’s reluctance to place himself in danger was considered proper, all the more so would it be proper for an average person, who was not given any instructions from G‑d, to avoid placing himself in danger as a result of his bitachon.

Until now, the author elaborated on the first possibility—that a person who places himself in danger might not be saved from that danger. Now, he briefly mentions the second possibility of G‑d’s performing a miracle on his behalf and saving him:

Even if he is saved, it is not a fully positive occurrence, because performing a miracle for someone may cause G‑d to deduct from the reward that was due that person.

The author now brings proof for the above concept that a person who places himself in danger risks one of the two aforementioned possibilities:

I have become small from all the kindnesses. Rashi (like the Targum) understands the verse I have become small to mean as a result of all the kindnesses. Meaning, “My merits have diminished because of the favors and truth You have done for me.” Ramban questions this interpretation, noting that it is inconsistent with the language of the verse, which states, I have become small, not that the speaker’s merits have become small.

The Alter Rebbe, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, explains the verse according to the commentary of Rashi, while also clarifying Ramban’s objection: From all the kindnesses indeed means that it was the kindness that made Jacob feel “small.” At the same time, though, I have become small— Jacob himself became diminished as a result of G‑d’s many kindnesses and His truth. Meaning, not only do the particular person’s merits become lessened, which results in his diminishment, but he himself is also directly affected as a result of the “kindness and truth.”

The Alter Rebbe explains that in contrast to kindness from the side of impurity ( chesed diklipah ), which makes the recipient feel arrogant and entitled—worthy—every single favor that G‑d bestows upon a man (through the kindness of holiness— chesed dikedushah ) must make the recipient humble. For whoever is brought exceedingly close to Gd, being raised to great heights, ought to feel even more humble. For every being of even the highest conceivable spiritual level is of absolutely no account—indeed, is nullified out of existence—when in G‑d’s presence, for nothing exists before G‑d other than Himself. Therefore, whoever is more “before Him,” i.e., whoever is closer to G‑d through the kindness that G‑d bestows upon him, automatically ought to feel exceedingly humbled, like nothing, and non-existent ( Tanya, Iggeret Hakodesh Epistle 2; cf . Maharsha, Chidushei Agadot, Shabbat 32b).

My merits have been diminished, etc. The Talmud cited above is proof that 1) a person should not place himself in danger; 2) if he does place himself in danger, he might not be miraculously saved; and 3) even if he is miraculously saved, it will come at the expense of the reward that is due for his mitzvot. This third point is further supported by the Targum’s explanation of the verse I have become small from all the kindnesses.