Therefore, Rambam repeats the teaching “ ‘to live by fulfilling them’ and not die because of them” with regard to Shabbos and he also adds, “This teaches that the judgments of the Torah do not [bring] vengeance to the world, but rather bring mercy, kindness, and peace to the world.” By doing so, he emphasizes that it is as if the Torah’s laws regarding the Shabbos prohibitions were never instituted in instances involving a danger to life. By contrast, a danger to life merely overrides other prohibitions. Accordingly, Rambam proceeds to state, “[Concerning] those non-believers who say that [administering such treatment] constitutes a violation of the Sabbath and is forbidden, [one may apply] the verse, ‘...statutes [which they misinterpret and cause to be] not beneficial.” With this verse, he emphasizes that by prohibiting the violation of the Shabbos laws when there is a threat to life, the non-believers are causing “the statutes” i.e., the laws of Shabbos, to be considered the desecration of Shabbos because their observance becomes “not beneficial.”
To phrase the concept differently: A threat to life brings about the suspension of the obligation to fulfill other mitzvos – they are dechuyah. By contrast, a threat to life absolves a person from the obligation to observe the Shabbos prohibitions – they are hutrah, rescinded.
With regard to a person whose life is in danger, it is as if the Shabbos prohibitions had never been issued; “Shabbos is like an ordinary weekday.”
The Distinction between Shabbos and Other Mitzvos
3. We can conceivably say that this is also the rationale for the difference in the wording in the two sources in Rambam’s text cited above: In Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah, regarding all the mitzvos, Rambam cites the teaching, “It is written concerning the mitzvos, ‘so that by fulfilling them man will live,’ [i.e., the mitzvos were given so that] ‘by fulfilling them man will live,’ and not die because of them,” repeating the phrase, “by fulfilling them man will live.” By contrast, in Hilchos Shabbos, he states, “ ‘so that by fulfilling them man will live’ and not die because of them,” without repeating that phrase.
When our Sages or Rabbis repeat a phrase while interpreting a verse, the intent is that their interpretation is not the straightforward understanding of the verse, but rather a specific teaching or law. By contrast, when they refer to a verse without repeating a phrase, the intent is that this is the simple meaning of the verse.
To apply this concept to the matter at hand: With regard to all the mitzvos, the phrase, “by fulfilling them man will live,” teaches a specific concept. It leads to the derivation of the law that the obligation to fulfill mitzvos does not supersede saving a Jew’s life, but rather a threat to a Jew’s life overrides the obligation to fulfill the mitzvos.
By contrast, according to Rambam, the interpretation of “ ‘[by fulfilling] them [man] will live’ and not [die because of them]” regarding Shabbos is not that the phrase teaches another law – that pikuach nefesh overrides the Shabbos prohibitions – but rather that “and not die because of them” should be understood as a continuation and an explanation of the phrase “[by fulfilling] them [man] will live.” It is for that intent that the judgments of the Torah were given. If there is a possibility that they will lead to death, it is not that the prohibition is superseded; it is as if it never existed at all.
