Getting back to what Tsvi was saying, I reject the notion that there are times when a Jewish death is a sanctity of G-d's name.
And the way Tzvi described it, Rav Bar Hayim also rejects that (what Tzvi said). But they redid the machonshilo.org website and his audio shiur about why that concept is mistaken looks like it was taken down from the site. Hopefully they'll get it back up there because I was meaning to listen to that myself. The intro to the shiur explained that it is problematic thinking that Jews killed for being Jews are looked at as "sacrifices" or "atonements" which we hear thrown around all the time these days....
Actually if anyone reads what I said (read carefully) I said both views, (and I did hear that shiur by Rav Bar Hayim) and I said that I agree with that view (of Rav Bar Hayim), and in addition to that I said their is another view (more Kabbalistic) that says that Jews that die by goyim also do Kiddush Hashem and go straight to the highest Olam Haba (becuase they atone for their community, etc.)
I said both views and approaches, and i did say that I agee more with the view of Rav Bar Hayim, but their is some truth in the other view (it is true, but it can be problematic when that view affects our actions and not only stays in the intellect).
Your post - the one i read anyway - didn't say why either view might be mistaken.. He isn't asking for both views..
KahaneBT is wondering what rabbi bar hayyim's reason was why the other view or other views, are mistaken.. If you don't know the reason, then I suspect we don't even know his view correctly either. If judea is about maybe he can chip in!
Kahane
I already said, becuase it leads to inaction. People just saying they died Al Kiddush Hashem and not doing anything about that (for the future).
That wouldn't make the view mistaken.. just means some reasoning from that view is mistaken.
I suppose that people that die sanctifying G-d's name, would live sanctifying it.. And better the latter. It seems obvious, but does it say that anywhere?
There is the concept - to live by the mitzvot and not die by them.. [1]
or, that it's better to live by them than to die by them..
But judging by the reference there, that is making a well known point on a related subject, but not that subject.
So I don't see my reasoning there getting around the inaction problem.
BTW, saying that the view that they died al kiddush hashem leads to inaction
a)that does not mean the view is mistaken
b)it does not resolve the contradiction, that how can jewish weakness(a chillul hashem) be a kiddush hashem. Ok, it's spiritual strength.. But physical weakness.
[1]
If a Jew is forced to either transgress any of the mitzvot commanded by the Torah or else be killed, he should transgress rather than be killed. For regarding the mitzvot, it is written, "[You shall keep My chukkim and mishpatim,] which man should do and live by them" -- live by them and not die by them... When does the above apply? In regard to all mitzvot, except for [the prohibitions against] idolatry, [certain] sexual sins, and murder. Regarding these three transgressions, if a person is told to either commit one of them or else be killed, he should be killed rather than transgress. (Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Fundamentals of Torah, 5:1-2).