Bnei Yisroel were enslaved in Mitzrayim and cried out bitterly to Hashem. Hashem heard the cry of bnei Yisroel, says the pasuk 2:25, “Vayar Elokim es bnei Yisroel vayeida Elokim” – Hashem saw bnei Yisroel and Hashem knew. What does this pasuk mean?
The Yalkut Shimoni tells us that the Sar shel Eisav complained to Hashem that klal Yisroel served avoda zara in Mitzrayim, and therefore they should not merit a salvation. Hashem answered that klal Yisroel only worshipped avoda zara because they were forced into it; they were enslaved in Mitzrayim, forced to perform backbreaking labor, and in their confusion they served avoda zara. How can you compare a nation that worshipped idols through such circumstances to the Egyptians who served idols willingly and purposefully?
Says the Bais Halevi, the only time you are able to claim that you are an “ones”, that you performed an act unwillingly because you were forced into it, is if in other circumstances you would never do that action. If you only did it because you were an “ones”, so then you’re not responsible and it’s considered as if you didn’t do it. But if you would’ve done that action in other circumstances, you are not considered an “ones” and you are responsible for your action.
Based on that principal, the Bais Halevi explains the pasuk mentioned above as follows:
“Vayar Elokim” – Hashem saw that the actions of klal Yisroel were done because of an “ones” and “vayeida Elokim” – Hashem understood because only He knows the insides of every person. Hashem knew that the only reason why klal Yisroel worshiped avoda zara was because they were an “ones”, and in different circumstances they would never have done it. Therefore, they deserved to be saved.
The Tziz Eliezer (chelek 8 siman 15 perek 13) brings a case if someone is very ill and needs a doctor on Shabbos and you have a choice – either to use a doctor who desecrates Shabbos or a doctor who keeps Torah and mitzvos, and they are both equally experts in their field – so who should you use? Says the Tziz Eliezer, according to the Bais Halevi’s approach, it would be better to use the doctor who keeps Torah and mitzvos because the doctor who desecrates Shabbos will desecrate the Shabbos even if you were not sick. So, the irreligious doctor is not considered an “ones” and will be punished for desecrating Shabbos, even though in this case it would be permitted. However, the religious doctor is only desecrating Shabbos to save your life, so he is considered an “ones” and will actually get a mitzvah for treating you on Shabbos.
The Rambam (perek 2 hilchos Shabbos halacha 16) brings a case where someone heard that a child was drowning on Shabbos and spread out a net in the hope to save the child, but only caught fish in the net. Was this person considered to have desecrated Shabbos? The Rambam says he is exempt. What about if a person had no idea there was a child drowning; he cast a net with the intention to catch fish and he ended up catching not only fish, but also the child! What’s his din? Says the Rambam, he is also exempt because he saved a child. Comes out according to the Rambam that if you desecrate Shabbos because of pikuach nefesh, it’s not called desecrating the Shabbos, even if you would have desecrated the Shabbos without pikuach nefesh. It seems that the Rambam held differently than the Bais Halevi, who held that this case would be considered desecrating the Shabbos.
The Rambam (Hilchos shegogos perek 2 halacha 15) brings this halacha that he said before, but adds if one spreads out a net to get fish b’shogeg (mistakenly – unintentionally) and he picks up fish with a child, he’s exempt from a chatas because he was a shogeg.
What does the Rambam mean that because he was a shogeg he’s exempt from a chatas? The Rambam should have said that he’s exempt from a chatas because what he did was permitted! Says the Kli Chemda (Parshas Vayechi ois 3) that the Rambam holds if you desecrated Shabbos b’maizid (purposefully), even if it came out that what you did was permitted because of pikuach nefesh, you would still be guilty because of your intentions and thoughts. However, if this was all done b’shogeg, then you are exempt even for a chatas. Even though usually a person must bring a chatas for sinning unintentionally, that’s only when an issur was actually committed. However, in this case, the action ended up being permitted! Since your action and intent were both innocent, you are not obligated to bring a chatas.
Now the Rambam is not shver on the Bais Halevi! The Bais Halevi says that if you sin purposefully, just now it happens to be a case of pikuach nefesh, it’s not considered an “ones” and you are guilty. But the Rambam is talking about a different case – when you sin unintentionally, and then find out that the action was indeed permitted – so it comes out that you never transgressed at all. Therefore, you are exempt.
Yes, our thoughts count!
