Wearing Tefilin If It Will Cause Them To Be Destroyed

(8) Bind them as a sign on your hand and let them serve as a symbol on your forehead;

In this Mitzvah the Sma"g quotes many statements from our Sages regarding the mitzvah of tefillin and its centrality to life as a Jew. Including that this mitzvah is equal to all of the 613 mizvos, and that it acts a testimony to our being Jews and our connection to Hashem, (which is why on Shabbos which is its own testimony we don't need to don tefillin). Also that a "karkafta" (a head) that rebelliously did not don tefillin is considered a very serious sin. Although the Rif says that means he never donned tefillin, the Sma"g says we must assume it also means even one day that tefillin were not put on.

(2) You must destroy all the sites at which the nations you are to dispossess worshiped their gods, whether on lofty mountains and on hills or under any luxuriant tree. (3) Tear down their altars, smash their pillars, put their sacred posts to the fire, and cut down the images of their gods, obliterating their name from that site. (4) Do not worship the Hashem your G-d in like manner,

(1) Not to destroy things upon which His name, may He be blessed, are called: That we should not destroy and erase the things upon which the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, are called, such as the Temple and holy books and His precious names, blessed be He. And about all this is it stated (Deuteronomy 12:4), "Do not do this to the Lord, your God." After it was preceded by the commandment to destroy idolatry and to erase its name and to demolish all of its houses and altars, it prevented [it here] and stated, "Do not do this to the Lord, your God." And at the end of Tractate Makkot 22a, they, may their memory be blessed, said "One who burns consecrated wood is lashed, and its warning is from 'and you shall destroy their name from that place[...] Do not do this, etc.'" And so too did they say there that one who erases the name [of God] is lashed, and its warning is from the very same verse.

(2) The root of the commandment is revealed. As when people approach the holy with fear, with trembling and with perspiration - through that, they will bring into their hearts great fear and awe towards God, blessed be He.

(3) From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Shevuot 35a) that there are seven names in the prohibition of this negative commandment. And these are them: the name of yod, hay - vav, hay which the sages called the explicit name; and so [too] the name that is written alef, dalet, nun, yod and El, Eloha, Elohim, Shaddai and Tsevaot.

(4) And they, may their memory be blessed, also said (Shevuot 35a) that any letter that serves as a prefix before the name is permitted to erase, for example the lamed (to) from, "to God." But what serves as a suffix after the name - such as the khaf (your) of "your God" or the mem (your - plural) of "your God," and similar to them - are not erased, since the name [of God] consecrates them. And one who writes [only] El from the word Elohim [that he planned to write], or Yah from yod, hay - vav, hay cannot have it erased because these are names [of God] on their own. But one who writes shad from Shaddai or tsav from Tsevaot - behold, it can be erased. And the rest of the appellations that are used to praise God - for example, Merciful, Graceful, Great, Powerful, Awesome and similar to them - behold, they are like the rest of the holy writings (Biblical texts), which are permitted to erase for the sake of any thing. And [also] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Shabbat 115a) that that which all holy writings (Biblical texts) and their commentaries are included in this prohibition, is from the words of the scribes (rabbinic) - that it is forbidden to destroy them or to burn them. And all of this that we have said is when it is written by a [proper] Israelite, but we burn - and it is a commandment to burn - everything that is written by an Israelite heretic, so as not to leave a name for (remembrance of) the heretics and all of their deeds, whereas we put away that which was written by a gentile (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foundations of the Torah 6:8). And [also] that which they said (Shevuot 35b) that all of the names with Avraham in the matter of the angels that came to him are holy, and those stated with Lot are profane, except for "Behold now Your servant has found favor in Your eyes" (Genesis 19:19); all the names stated with the mountain of Binyamin (Judges 19-21) are holy, but from all those stated with Micah (Judges 17-18), some are profane and some are holy - el is profane, Yah is holy, except for one El which is holy, and that is "all the days that the house of God was in Shiloh" (Judges 18:31); all that are stated with Navot (I Kings 21) are holy; every Shomo that is stated in the Song of Songs is holy - and it is like the rest of the appellations - except for "a thousand to you, Shlomo" (Song of Songs 8:12); and all kings stated in Daniel are profane except for one, "You are the King, the King of the kings" (Daniel 2:37) - and behold it is like the other appellations. [These] and the rest of its details are found in Tractate Shevuot.

(5) And this prohibition is forbidden in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and erases even one letter from the seven names that we mentioned is liable for lashes. But if he removed one letter from the letters that served as suffixes after them, he would [only] be lashed with lashes of rebellion. And so [too,] one who removes even one stone in a destructive way from the altar or from the chamber or from the rest of the [Temple] yard is liable for lashes.

mishna And these are the transgressors who are killed by decapitation in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: The murderer; and the residents of an idolatrous city, all of whom engaged in idol worship.

The mishna teaches: If one set a dog against an individual and the dog killed him, or if one set a snake against an individual and the snake killed him, the one who set the dog or the snake is exempt from punishment. If he imbedded the snake’s fangs into another person and caused the snake to bite him and kill him, Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable to be executed, and the Rabbis exempt him. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: When you analyze the matter you will find that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, venom of a snake stands within its fangs, and in this case the entire action is performed by the individual who imbeds the fang in the other person’s skin. The snake is passive. Therefore, the one who causes the snake to bite is liable to be executed by beheading with a sword as a murderer, and the snake is exempt. According to the statement of the Rabbis, venom of a snake is discharged by the snake itself. The snake directly causes the death, while the individual who imbeds the fang is merely an indirect cause. Consequently, the snake is executed by stoning, and the one who caused the snake to bite is exempt from execution.

The reason why if he did not place the person directly in the heat etc. he is exempt from execution is because the Torah only taught "mitzamtzem" (that someone who confines another is liable) when the damages have already begun at the time of the confinement. However - if he tied him up inside and brought him to a place where the heat or cold would eventually come it would seem that then he should be liable according to the opinion that one is liable for the damages of his fire for it is akin to throwing an arrow which causes damage. There should be no difference whether he brings the fire closer to the thing which gets damaged, or brings the item (in this case the person) closer to the fire...

But the question arises, according to the opinion that when he caused a snake to bite he is exempt because the venom comes from the snake, - and the gemara (Baba Kama 23b) explains that we are discussing a case where he placed the other person's hand into the snake's mouth, - why is that not similar to bringing the object (or person) closer to the fire?

A possible answer is that by the snake it is a different situation because the venom doesn't exist (as an active damager, like the fire) until the snake bite and spits it out of its stomach...

It is also possible to suggest that in all the cases mentioned - where the cold or heat or lion come later, and where he threw a rock and it fell, if he tied him and brought him there he is also exempt from execution...

This Tosfos is similar to the earlier one, however here he only quotes the former opinion mentioned there.

Rather, Rava bar Rav Sheila said that this is the reasoning of the Rabbis: They hold that it is prohibited for a person to stand before the name of God while naked, and therefore there must be a barrier between one’s naked body and the name. The Gemara asks: Is that to say by inference that Rabbi Yosei holds that it is permitted to stand before the name while naked? The Gemara answers: No, he does not allow doing so; however, he does not require that the name be covered with a reed. It is sufficient for one to place his hand over the name.

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to him: Heaven will have mercy and protect me. Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to him: I am saying reasonable matters to you, and you say to me: Heaven will have mercy? I wonder if the Romans will not burn both you and your Torah scroll by fire. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon said to him: My teacher, what will become of me? Am I destined for life in the World-to-Come?...

§ Rabbi Elazar went and said (a certain) halakha in the study hall, but he did not state it in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. Instead, he issued the halakha without attribution. Rabbi Yoḥanan heard that Rabbi Elazar omitted mention of his name and became angry with him. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi visited Rabbi Yoḥanan, to placate him so that he would not be annoyed with his beloved disciple. They said to him: Wasn’t there an incident in the synagogue of Tiberias involving a bolt that secures a door in place and that has a thick knob [gelustera] at its end? The question was whether it may be moved on Shabbat as a vessel, or whether it is considered muktze as raw material.

The implication is that this happened on the day of his bris, and the warm water was necessary for the milah. It must have occured though before the milah itself, because after the milah the baby himself is dangeroulsy ill, and we can desecrate Shabbos for him even without the reasoning of his mother.

It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in praise of the observance of the mitzva of circumcision: Any mitzva for which the Jews sacrificed their lives at the time of the decrees of the wicked empire, such as the prohibition of idolatry and the mitzva of circumcision, is still steadfastly observed. And any mitzva for which the Jews did not sacrifice their lives at the time of the decrees of the wicked empire, such as phylacteries, is still casually observed, meaning that they are not as careful in its fulfillment as they should be. The Gemara cites proof that the mitzva of phylacteries was not fulfilled properly at the time of the decrees, based upon an incident related to the following halakha. As Rabbi Yannai said: Donning phylacteries requires a clean body like that of Elisha, Man of Wings. What is included in the requirement to have a clean body? Abaye said: That one may not pass wind in them. Rava said: That one may not sleep in them. The Gemara asks: And why did they call him Elisha, Man of Wings? Because on one occasion the wicked empire of Rome issued a decree against the Jewish people that, as punishment, they would pierce the brain of anyone who dons phylacteries on his head. Nevertheless, Elisha would don them and defiantly go out to the marketplace. One day, an official who was appointed to enforce the decree saw him. Elisha ran away from him, and the official ran after him. When the official reached him, Elisha removed the phylacteries from his head and held them in his hand. The officer asked him: What is in your hand? Elisha said to him: It is merely a dove’s wings. A miracle took place: He opened his hand, and, indeed, it was found to be a dove’s wings. Therefore, in commemoration of this miracle, they would call him Elisha, Man of Wings. The Gemara asks: And what is different about a dove’s wings, that Elisha specifically told him that he was holding the wings of a dove and he did not tell him he was holding the wings of other birds? The Gemara answers: Because the congregation of Israel is likened to a dove, as it is stated: “You shall shine as the wings of a dove covered with silver and her pinions with yellow gold” (Psalms 68:14). Just as a dove has only its wings to protect it, so too, the Jewish people have only mitzvot to protect them. Apparently, Elisha Man of Wings was vigilant in fulfilling the mitzva of phylacteries in the face of the decree, whereas the rest of the people were not.